[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Would not those be legitimate potential “benefits” to society at a whole?[/quote]
No.
[/quote]
Really? Define benefits to society as a whole then.[/quote]
Babies.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Reproductive “nature” changes with age[/quote]
Uh…lol. Nvm, I’ll let Sloth explain this.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do we really have to argue this? Can’t you just admit they aren’t equal in function and form? Not even close. I’ll keep it saying it, and you folks know it’s true. The sudden disappearance of homosexuality (or the eventual cure, if biological) would be a curious news event. Heterosexuality? Panic, chaos, crashing entitlements, crashing economies, plummeting species, extinction.[/quote]
I will admit that they aren’t the same in physical form. It’s pretty clear that a male and a female are different than a male and male or female and female pair from a physical standpoint. But if you are only going to look at things from a biological standpoint, then you have to admit that an infertile heterosexual couple serves no more biological or “greater good” function than a homosexual couple. Neither are any more or less capable of producing offspring (without outside intervention/help), regardless of what type of plumbing they possess.
The point is that marriage serves more benefits than a purely biological one and unless you want to start denying non fertile heterosexual couples the right to marry, then denying homosexual couples the right to marry on a biological basis makes no sense.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Would not those be legitimate potential “benefits” to society at a whole?[/quote]
No.
[/quote]
Really? Define benefits to society as a whole then.[/quote]
Babies.[/quote]
Again then, you’d have to start denying non fertile heterosexual couples the right to marry. After all, if that’s the only benefit, those couples have no more social benefit than homosexual couples do.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Reproductive “nature” changes with age and genetic/biological conditions though. A 60 year old woman, while perhaps having the external “equipment” to reproduce does not have the nature to do so.[/quote]
So, what was your point here? The reproductive sexes are the reproductive sexes. The heart might stop with age, too. It’s nature is still to eject blood from the ventricles…
I don’t deny anyone ‘marriage rights.’ You want to exchange rings and tell everyone your transgendered-female bodied-post op wife and bi-curious husband, I’m not sending in the Swat team. But you won’t be getting any support from me for state recognition and privileges beyond those of 3 fishing buddies. The state would be simply blind and uninvolved.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Reproductive “nature” changes with age[/quote]
Uh…lol. Nvm, I’ll let Sloth explain this.[/quote]
Yeah…you do that. Are you really going to sit there and tell me that a post menopausal woman is going to get pregnant and deliver a child? Or how about a woman who has had a hysterectomy? So, are they by “nature” any more reproductive than a homosexual couple?
Or again, what about a hermaphrodite? Should they be just plain denied marriage rights all together since their “nature” doesn’t promote reproductive benefits?
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Would not those be legitimate potential “benefits” to society at a whole?[/quote]
No.
[/quote]
Really? Define benefits to society as a whole then.[/quote]
Babies.[/quote]
Again then, you’d have to start denying non fertile heterosexual couples the right to marry. After all, if that’s the only benefit, those couples have no more social benefit than homosexual couples do.[/quote]
One more time.
One man and one female, the reproductive sexes, paired into committed relationships. The birds and bees, through the sheer numbers of society, takes care of the rest. The infertile couple STILL serves that model. Their numbers reinforce those already encountered walking down the street, browsing in a shop, eating at a restaurant. Reinforcing a norm. Otherwise, you increase the model of the reproductive sexes pursuing intimacy outside of marriage (the pairing up into committed relationships mentioned above). The exact opposite of the underlying goal.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Reproductive “nature” changes with age and genetic/biological conditions though. A 60 year old woman, while perhaps having the external “equipment” to reproduce does not have the nature to do so.[/quote]
So, what was your point here? The reproductive sexes are the reproductive sexes. The heart might stop with age, too. It’s nature is still to eject blood from the ventricles…
I don’t deny anyone ‘marriage rights.’ You want to exchange rings and tell everyone your transgendered-female bodied-post op wife and bi-curious husband, I’m not sending in the Swat team. But you won’t be getting any support from me for state recognition and privileges beyond those of two 3 fishing buddies. The state would be simply blind and uninvolved.
[/quote]
Ok, fair enough. I’m not saying that you have to agree with other’s lifestyles by any means.
Are you in the camp that believes it’s the actual institution of marriage (and the using of that word) that is sacred and should be reserved for only a heterosexual couple (but you wouldn’t have a problem with homosexual couples gaining certain “couples privileges” like hospital visitation rights, health care benefits, etc…)? Or are you in the camp who would choose to deny them all rights?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Surely none of you who are on board with Sir Slam Bam the Ethiopian Hawaiian Man would be so bigoted as to deny me my “right” to marry 159 women, would you?[/quote]
Frankly, you of all people should know better, but if you should be especially drunk one day, go for it and report back.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Reproductive “nature” changes with age and genetic/biological conditions though. A 60 year old woman, while perhaps having the external “equipment” to reproduce does not have the nature to do so.[/quote]
So, what was your point here? The reproductive sexes are the reproductive sexes. The heart might stop with age, too. It’s nature is still to eject blood from the ventricles…
I don’t deny anyone ‘marriage rights.’ You want to exchange rings and tell everyone your transgendered-female bodied-post op wife and bi-curious husband, I’m not sending in the Swat team. But you won’t be getting any support from me for state recognition and privileges beyond those of two 3 fishing buddies. The state would be simply blind and uninvolved.
[/quote]
Ok, fair enough. I’m not saying that you have to agree with other’s lifestyles by any means.
Are you in the camp that believes it’s the actual institution of marriage (and the using of that word) that is sacred and should be reserved for only a heterosexual couple (but you wouldn’t have a problem with homosexual couples gaining certain “couples privileges” like hospital visitation rights, health care benefits, etc…)? Or are you in the camp who would choose to deny them all rights?[/quote]
I’m in the camp that says they have the same rights as you and your best friend with respect to arranging some kind of hospital visitation agreement. Not a ‘couples privilege.’ Why would I discriminate needlessly against non-couples, pretending homosexuals have some objectively superior relationship? A homosexual relationship is no more critical to society than your relationship with your best pal. Short, to the point, but I’m about ready to shut down for the night.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Would not those be legitimate potential “benefits” to society at a whole?[/quote]
No.
[/quote]
Really? Define benefits to society as a whole then.[/quote]
Babies.[/quote]
Again then, you’d have to start denying non fertile heterosexual couples the right to marry. After all, if that’s the only benefit, those couples have no more social benefit than homosexual couples do.[/quote]
One more time.
One man and one female, the reproductive sexes, paired into committed relationships. The birds and bees, through the sheer numbers of society, takes care of the rest. The infertile couple STILL serves that model. Their numbers reinforce those already encountered walking down the street, browsing in a shop, eating at a restaurant. Reinforcing a norm. Otherwise, you increase the model of the reproductive sexes pursuing intimacy outside of marriage (the pairing up into committed relationships mentioned above). The exact opposite of the underlying goal.
[/quote]
Interesting, so honest question for you then. Do you believe that if I dropped you onto some island somewhere where homosexual marriage was totally legal that instead of pursuing a heterosexual relationship, you would instead seek our a homosexual relationship?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I actually think if a “cure” was found a good percentage of people wouldn’t even use it. [/quote]
Drop the emotional wishful thinking. It would be one of the most routinely requestedscreens and treatments. Atheist, liberal, conservative, religious alike.
[/quote]
Any pro gay marriage people here agree with Sloth?[/quote]
I think he is spot on.
People would choose against it for all kinds of reasons and the end result would be very few gay people.
Of course, gay people could go on and make a shitton of gay babies but I doubt that enough would
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What is so special about heterosexuals…[/quote]
The propagation of the citizenry. Hell, the species.
The next person that asks this gets put on ignore. I will not pretend you’re actually this stupid. You’re not. So, stop stalling the discussion, and act like an adult. If this has to be argued (yet again, so soon), it’s going to be an honest argument this time. I’m tired of the emotional blabbering, with zero justification, over state recognized homosexual marriage. Stop pretending.[/quote]
So we need state recognized marriage and tax breaks in order to propagate the species?
[/quote]
One wonders how we managed before they existed…
[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]
Now that is nonsense.
Nobody needs marriage to “order procreation”.
I shudder at the thought of what state sponsored “ordered procreation” would look like.
We need marriage for after the act of procreation has borne fruit and, incidentally, that homosexual people can do as well as the next couple.
Assuming that there even is a couple, which in ever increasing numbers there is not.
Yup, this is my new route of attack, procreation, schmocreation.
Nobody needs marriage in order to fuck, but a well ordered institution to rear children does have its advantages.
Given that sex and child rearing are loosely connected at best, there is no reason to deny anyone the right of a protected relationship who wants to raise children on the grounds that he cannot produce them.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Would not those be legitimate potential “benefits” to society at a whole?[/quote]
No.
[/quote]
Really? Define benefits to society as a whole then.[/quote]
Babies.[/quote]
Again then, you’d have to start denying non fertile heterosexual couples the right to marry. After all, if that’s the only benefit, those couples have no more social benefit than homosexual couples do.[/quote]
Actually they do give benefits to society as a whole, reinforcement of the norm.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Reproductive “nature” changes with age[/quote]
Uh…lol. Nvm, I’ll let Sloth explain this.[/quote]
Yeah…you do that. Are you really going to sit there and tell me that a post menopausal woman is going to get pregnant and deliver a child? Or how about a woman who has had a hysterectomy? So, are they by “nature” any more reproductive than a homosexual couple?[/quote]
Wait…Did you ever study metaphysics or metaphysic definitions in college?
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Would not those be legitimate potential “benefits” to society at a whole?[/quote]
No.
[/quote]
Really? Define benefits to society as a whole then.[/quote]
Babies.[/quote]
Again then, you’d have to start denying non fertile heterosexual couples the right to marry. After all, if that’s the only benefit, those couples have no more social benefit than homosexual couples do.[/quote]
One more time.
One man and one female, the reproductive sexes, paired into committed relationships. The birds and bees, through the sheer numbers of society, takes care of the rest. The infertile couple STILL serves that model. Their numbers reinforce those already encountered walking down the street, browsing in a shop, eating at a restaurant. Reinforcing a norm. Otherwise, you increase the model of the reproductive sexes pursuing intimacy outside of marriage (the pairing up into committed relationships mentioned above). The exact opposite of the underlying goal.
[/quote]
Interesting, so honest question for you then. Do you believe that if I dropped you onto some island somewhere where homosexual marriage was totally legal that instead of pursuing a heterosexual relationship, you would instead seek our a homosexual relationship?
[/quote]
Lol, did you just ask Sloth if he likes the wiener?
[quote]orion wrote:
We need marriage for after the act of procreation has borne fruit[/quote]
That’s worked out great lately. Just ask detroit. I don’t even think they celebrate father’s day there anymore.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
We need marriage for after the act of procreation has borne fruit[/quote]
That’s worked out great lately. Just ask detroit. I don’t even think they celebrate father’s day there anymore.[/quote]
Well, that was beside the point, because my answer would be: exactly.
Obviously people can breed without marriage.
This is not the problem in and of itself, raising children without a marriage is.
Since this is not prima facie a heterosexual endeavor and since children can be and are raised by homosexual couples too, it follows that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
For the children, for society and the greater glory of Rome.
And I am dead serious about the children part to, all else is just shacking up with legal benefits.