Wrong.
Ima bow out now. You seem to be stuck in the herpderp back n forth with Zecarlo thing. I have zero interest in playing further.
Wedding gifts.
So the purpose of marriage is for us to have a way as a society to attaboy people, so long as they number in 2âs, in relationships that somehow objectively mean more than other types of relationships of any imaginable number and nature. Just because we all want to hand out benefits to people in duos.
Then a great big no thanks to homosexual marriage for sure. Their relationships need no more recognition than a group of life long bachelor friends. Order your own affairs via private contract. The importance of their relationship vs any other imaginable human arrangement is subjective. The state has no business recognizing it. And it has zero inherent utility to society as a whole to fall back on.
You keep saying this, like itâs not the opposite of what Iâve said on multiple occasions. Fucking read man. Itâs really frustrating.
I think the benefits to society wouldnât be seen with the âI want to marry 10 womenâ crowd. Unless you know more of them than I do.
Agreed. Good thing thatâs never been the case, nor ever will be the case. Dodged a bullet on that one didnât we?
There are a slew of benefits directly associated with the govt recognition of marriage. The private contract could theoretically scratch the surface though.
You agreed homosexuality doesnât have inherent value to society. Donât need to recognize it then via state recognized marriage and provide it privileged benefits at the exclusion of all other imaginable arrangements excepting one.
Wrong. I agreed it has value as a whole to fall back on
Thatâs why I, ya know, quoted that part.
Youâre really really fuckin bad at reading man. To add in not actually knowing what marriage is. Thatâs like the worlds worst cherry on top of the worldâs 3rd worst sundae.
Thatâs the full sentence.
Correct. âAs a whole to fall back on.â
Luckily, itâs laughably stupid to even entertain the thought that homosexuality will need to be capable as a whole to fall back on.
Youâre reading that wrong I believe. Or, you are agreeing that it provides zero utility to fall back on.
Then I havenât agreed with whatever you meant it as. I read it as homosexuality cannot fully replace heterosexuality in the vanishing heteros scenario.
In the vanishing heteros scenarioâŠIt canât replace it at all. It would require gays having hetero sex 24-7. Hetero sexâŠOr just about every homosexual doing IVF over and over. And, with both, still fall drastically short. Heterosexual sex by every gay and science might be able to provide a tiny portion. Homosexuality itself cant
But in that exchange I simply meant that we have no obligation to support an institution seemingly created to arbitrarily provide benefits to a relationship whose value over any other imaginable human relationship is purely subjective. An institution that seemingly exists for the sake of existing. And, it doesnât even have a society wide importance/utility/impact to fall back on as a feature inherent to it. . It just exits to recieve benefits from the state.
Agreed. But since itâs a laughably silly scenario not based anywhere in reality, itâs just not worthy of merit or discussion.
All fear mongering guesswork, but since itâs doesnât matter even a little, as thatâs not the benchmark, thereâs really no point in arguing.
Marriage also, in and of itself, provides value back to society at large. Itâs a mutually beneficial exchange. I say this as an educational line. You genuinely seem to not be aware of the societal impact of marriage.
Correct. As you donât see inherent value in that equality, as you donât see them as equal, no qualms with you not supporting it.
But since it costs you nothing, and your fear mongering population scares donât stand up to basic math and common sense, thereâs no reason to support its repeal. Given it provides value to society and costs you nothing, youâd be actively supporting a move that negatively impacts society.
Of course it does. Just not in the reproductive sense. But what kinda moron would think that heteros are going to go extinct, amirite?
What crucial value does homosexual marriage provide? Waiting on it.
All of the same ones that hetero marriage provides except having a biological child with each other
I really am still blown away that you donât know how marriage works. I thought you were married.
They arenât equal by nature. Thereâs no value in pretending they are.
Giving gay people a legal unity doesnât make them equal by nature. Get over yourself. Itâs not fancy or special to get married. It requires 200 bucks and 30 minutes in Vegas. And thatâs for the classy ones.
Is a committed bachelorâs friendships equal to their value?
Is a committed single life itself equal?
To the value of being legally married? Ofc not.
But really though. Arenât you married? Is it one of those âIâm basically in hell alreadyâ marriages? My mom had one of those for a bit
No. To a homosexual relationship, period.
They need to be exactly equal to qualify for marital status with the govt?
Good thing that applies to my buddy who canât have a kid too.