Sloth I responded to you on the previous page. My posts are showing up late so you may have missed it.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Adoption. What’s your next argument?[/quote]
Marriage functions to order procreation - adoption is irrelevant. You don’t need the public policy of marriage for adoption, you do for procreation.
What’s yours?
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< It’s annoying sleeping while everyone else is posting and waking up to 50 new posts and having to go right to work, I’ll tell you. >>>[/quote]How well I do so understand this.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
your religious views are strongly against homosexuality[/quote]
lol. Yes, against acting on one’s homosexuality and not homosexuals. 
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Should I demand subsidized birth control pills as a matter of “equality”? Of course not - the policy of subsidized birth control pills have nothing to do with me. There is no point, such a policy serves no purpose for me, nor does it regulate any behavior on my end. [/quote]
This comparison to birth control makes absolutely no sense. There would be a whole HOST of benefits for gay people if they were given the right to marry. You would receive very little benefit if any at all from subsidized birth control.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Same with marriage and gay relationships. Marriage is designed - as a public policy matter - to deal with procreation, and by logical extension, relationships that procreate. Gay relationships do not procreate, and they never will. [/quote]
They do adopt, pay taxes and contribute to society though. Theres no reason to deny these benefits, they are no drawbacks.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Adoption. What’s your next argument?[/quote]
Marriage functions to order procreation - adoption is irrelevant. You don’t need the public policy of marriage for adoption, you do for procreation.
What’s yours?[/quote]
Well according to some of your fellow theists it also acts as a mechanism to create intact homes for child rearing.
So no it’s not irrelevant.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Marriage functions to order procreation - adoption is irrelevant. You don’t need the public policy of marriage for adoption, you do for procreation.
What’s yours?[/quote]
No, marriage functions to order property rights. It has naught to do with procreation at all. If it were just about procreation then we wouldn’t have the royal family.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What the hell is so special about homosexuals that they need government recognition of their private relationship?
[/quote]
What is so special about heterosexuals that they need government recognition? It is really a matter of differentiating between the 2 groups that is the problem, regardless of what is or isn’t recognized.[/quote]
Babies.[/quote]
Adoption. What’s your next argument?
[/quote]
No. Adoption does not make babies. It takes a baby that is from a mother and father (read vagina and penis) and puts it in a home that is not the original mother or father’s home.
I swear, for all ya’ll that advocate for sex ed in schools…ya’ll suck balls at understanding how a baby is made.
What’s your next argument, that babies really come from storks?
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
No, marriage functions to order property rights. It has naught to do with procreation at all. If it were just about procreation then we wouldn’t have the royal family.[/quote]
False - marriage orders procreation, hence the incentives for biological parents to become married and stay married, as well as the (now weakened) cultural shame attached to people who have children out of wedlock. Your comment that the public policy of marriage has “naught” to do with procreation is ludicrous.
Marriage does help to order property rights, but all in the context of children and distribution among a family.
Property rights could just as easily be ordered by pure contract, and nowadays, most often is. The public policy of marriage serves another purpose.
Try again.
OK I have a big ass rant, because Obummer decided to rub elbows with Clooney up the street from where I live.
45 minutes to go 3 miles, yes thank you Mr. Obama, NO ONE can do gridlock the way you can.
Hey Barack, did you know we have things like copters that can fly above highways, streets, and even buildings so that we-the-meager can make it to and fro without moving at a pace that would make a street sweeper laugh at us.
Oh yea, well done Joe Biden for another goof, forcing Obama’s hand with this issue.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Marriage functions to order procreation - adoption is irrelevant. You don’t need the public policy of marriage for adoption, you do for procreation.
What’s yours?[/quote]
No, marriage functions to order property rights. It has naught to do with procreation at all. If it were just about procreation then we wouldn’t have the royal family.
[/quote]
This is the dumbest shit I have ever read in my life, you betray your position. For most of the entire history of the world property rights are passed on to a child (and for that matter mostly first born males)…not a wife, after all how in the world can property own property (this is the assumption spouted by “secular” sources about marriage before you know someone thought it ingenious to let wimmenz folk out of the kitchen).
Charles the VI did not pass on the kingdom to his wife…he passed it onto his daughter (lucky her, long live the Queen). In my family, I’m the heir to my maternal grandfather’s and my father’s property. My grandfather had a bajillion daughters, and his wife is still alive…however, I have the rights to all his property (known as that I own all his stuff) because I was the first born male under him.
So, if marriage was a function to order property rights, then it was for the one purpose of producing (knocking boots again when only done with a penis and vagina) heirs in order to transfer property rights. This would necessitate that the marriage could first off…produce a baby.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Should I demand subsidized birth control pills as a matter of “equality”? Of course not - the policy of subsidized birth control pills have nothing to do with me. There is no point, such a policy serves no purpose for me, nor does it regulate any behavior on my end. [/quote]
This comparison to birth control makes absolutely no sense. There would be a whole HOST of benefits for gay people if they were given the right to marry. You would receive very little benefit if any at all from subsidized birth control.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Same with marriage and gay relationships. Marriage is designed - as a public policy matter - to deal with procreation, and by logical extension, relationships that procreate. Gay relationships do not procreate, and they never will. [/quote]
They do adopt, pay taxes and contribute to society though. Theres no reason to deny these benefits, they are no drawbacks.
[/quote]
Adoption =/= procreation. So, in order for a gay couple to adopt…a man and a woman have to have sex.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Should I demand subsidized birth control pills as a matter of “equality”? Of course not - the policy of subsidized birth control pills have nothing to do with me. There is no point, such a policy serves no purpose for me, nor does it regulate any behavior on my end. [/quote]
This comparison to birth control makes absolutely no sense. There would be a whole HOST of benefits for gay people if they were given the right to marry. You would receive very little benefit if any at all from subsidized birth control.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Same with marriage and gay relationships. Marriage is designed - as a public policy matter - to deal with procreation, and by logical extension, relationships that procreate. Gay relationships do not procreate, and they never will. [/quote]
They do adopt, pay taxes and contribute to society though. Theres no reason to deny these benefits, they are no drawbacks.
[/quote]
Adoption =/= procreation. So, in order for a gay couple to adopt…a man and a woman have to have sex. [/quote]
You do realize LGBT couples can provide stable households for children without physically giving birth to them right?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
This comparison to birth control makes absolutely no sense. There would be a whole HOST of benefits for gay people if they were given the right to marry. You would receive very little benefit if any at all from subsidized birth control.[/quote]
No, no, no, no, no - not benefits to me, benefits to the larger society. The government doesn’t hand out subsidized birth control for the fun of it - it hands it out because there is some perceived benefit to the larger society in providing subsidized birth control pills, i.e., bettwe women’s health outcomes, etc.
There is no reason for the government to give the “benefits” to me because it gets nothing worthwhile back from a policy standpoint - I am not a woman, and me being in the possession of birth control pills won’t lead to better women’s health outcomes.
It would serve no public policy purpose for the larger society, because I am not who the policy is designed to deal with.
There are drawbacks, but more importantly, society gains nothing in particular from publicly recognizing gay relationships. Nothing. Period. There is no glaring public problem that we “need” gay marriage to fix.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Well according to some of your fellow theists it also acts as a mechanism to create intact homes for child rearing.
So no it’s not irrelevant. [/quote]
Yes, it is, because marriage serves to create intact homes for not just child rearing, but a specific kind of child rearing - rearing done by the biological parents of said child. That is the first mission of marriage. Adoption doesn’t fall into this category, and we don’t have a public policy of marriage in place to promote adoption.
That doesn’t mean adoption is bad, it’s just not the public policy problem marriage is in place to ameliorate.
And enough with the “fellow theists” nonsense - your ad hominems aren’t getting you any where.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Some of us see marriage as nothing more than a contract between two people who want to tether their lives together.[/quote]
And the government has a critical interest in recognizing, privileging, and promoting this why? Great you want to ‘tether’ your life together (and not necessarily ‘two’ people). And?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Well according to some of your fellow theists it also acts as a mechanism to create intact homes for child rearing.
So no it’s not irrelevant. [/quote]
Yes, it is, because marriage serves to create intact homes for not just child rearing, but a specific kind of child rearing - rearing done by the biological parents of said child. That is the first mission of marriage. Adoption doesn’t fall into this category, and we don’t have a public policy of marriage in place to promote adoption.
That doesn’t mean adoption is bad, it’s just not the public policy problem marriage is in place to ameliorate.[/quote]
And the purpose can change. It can now be about promoting procreation while also maximizing the number of intact homes for children. As demonstrated earlier in the thread, LGBT couples are just as capable of rearing children as biological parents.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And enough with the “fellow theists” nonsense - your ad hominems aren’t getting you any where.[/quote]
Really wasn’t my intention - if you notice all arguing for are atheists while all arguing against are theists.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Best friends who cuddle with each other at night, business partners, lifelong bachelor roommates, two strangers who that met yesterday, or 2 people who just want tax benefits. Stop pretending.[/quote]
So let me see if I have this straight. In order to make room for state recognized and privileged gay marriage you have to reduce marriage to ‘2 people hanging out together.’ What is the point?! To create recognition and privileging of ‘2 people hanging out together’ simply for the sake of recognizing ‘2 people hanging out together?’ Why?! Why not 3 people? Or 1 singular person. Why not define married to simply mean ‘adult citizen,’ regardless of relationship to others. Why recognize any status publicly? Why, why, why? And what’s with the discriminatory ‘2?’