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]
Gay marriage is about one thing, and nothing else - cultural symbolism that gay relationships are finally “equal” to heterosexual ones. But with respect to the public policy of marriage, they aren’t equal, and they can’t be.
[/quote]
Well, we have posters here who make the argument that infertile hetero marriages are a-ok, even something to promote, precisely because of their cultural symbolism.
Gay marriage is about one thing, and nothing else - cultural symbolism that gay relationships are finally “equal” to heterosexual ones. But with respect to the public policy of marriage, they aren’t equal, and they can’t be.
[/quote]
Well, we have posters here who make the argument that infertile hetero marriages are a-ok, even something to promote, precisely because of their cultural symbolism.
[/quote]
What you call “hetero” marriage - i.e. marriage, is the cultural norm and that has been the case always. Conservatives are defending existing and ancient institutions. Gay radicals are subverting the will of the people via judicial activism and politically motivated litigation etc. They are attempting to undermine - nay, destroy existing institutions; to radically transform society. There’s no comparison.
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]
What makes you think that all those on either side fit into those categories? Buddhism would be considered a theistic religion, as would Hinduism, but you don’t see too many of them arguing against gay marriage. Even some forms of Christianity don’t oppose gay marriage (not all Christianity is right wing; ever heard of Unitarianism, or The United Church of Christ?) I’m sure there are also some atheists who oppose gay marriage for non religious reasons.[/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]
But that isn’t the purpose, it hasn’t changed. We don’t want to “maximize the number of intact homes for children” without first deciding what kind of home we want. And we want a home with the two biological parents - nothing else is equal or better.
And, no, LGBT couples are not just as capable. You meant to tell me you think that a child raised by his/her biological parents in an intact home are exactly as well off as on who isn’t (regardless of the arranagement)?
And you’ve got it all wrong - want to increase the number of “intact homes”? Make divorce harder.
Atheists are incredibly poor arguers, but set that aside - I have’t made an appeal to traidtional marriage on religious grounds, and I won’t (and I don’t need to). So, deal with the arguments as they are, not as you wish them to be.
Point is this - it’s fairly easy to out-“secular” the secularists on this topic, so let’s stay on the secular battlefield…fine with me.
Does even just the tiniest bit of common sense pound against the interior of your cranium and suggest Mama and Daddy is the better way to go rather than Daddy and Daddy? Do you not concede that a child who grows up seeing the interaction between the two sexes as parents has got to trump the situation of the child growing up hearing daddy poking daddy in the ass every night?[/quote]
There it is ladies and gentlemen the douchiness of Mr Push. lol how sad are you Push, its true people are petty.[/quote]
I didn’t take it that way. I think if I was in Montana we might have a lively discussion on the matter then agree to disagree and go pick up some heavy stuff and grill something.
Nobody needs marriage to “order procreation”. [/quote]
Sure we do, libertarian revisionism aside. Humans are prone to some bad results when left to their own devices. Marriage helps civilize men, and thus helps order procreation.
Well, we have posters here who make the argument that infertile hetero marriages are a-ok, even something to promote, precisely because of their cultural symbolism.[/quote]
Even assuming this is true, the infertile couple “symbol” promotes a legitimate policy interest - traditional marriage and the social benefits. The gay marriage “symbol” doesn’t promote any legitimate policy interest.
But that isn’t the purpose, it hasn’t changed. We don’t want to “maximize the number of intact homes for children” without first deciding what kind of home we want. And we want a home with the two biological parents - nothing else is equal or better. [/quote]
That’s what you want, I disagree. I want children to grow up in stable, nurturing environments, the sex of those raising the child are irrelevant to me.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And, no, LGBT couples are not just as capable. You meant to tell me you think that a child raised by his/her biological parents in an intact home are exactly as well off as on who isn’t (regardless of the arranagement)? [/quote]
A few pages back I’ve made the case they are. Study after study has shown LGBT parents are just as capable as straight parents in rearing children.
Go back a few pages and take a look see. If you’re asserting LGBT couples make for inferior parents (compared to biological parents) please provide evidence.
But seriously, there are countless examples of when biological parents make AWFUL parents. The reality is there are awful LGBT parents and there are awful biological parents. The quality of parents hinges on the individuals not on gender.
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]
It is reasons like this why I will never give up the fight for gay marriage regardless of how valid any other arguments against it may be.
And enough with the “we allow infertile couples marry so procreation can’t be what marriage is about!” (non)argument.
First of all, fertility isn’t static - couples who think they are infertile may well wind up being fertile.
Second, the law is overinclusive and includes infertile couples, just as the voting laws exclude plenty of very smart, very capable under-18 year olds who would be fine, informed voters from voting. We exclude under-18 year olds from voting generally because of a general observation and conclusion that under-18 voters aren’t mature enough to vote, despite obvious exceptions.
Same with intfertile heterosexual couples - the law of marriage is a general observation and conclusion that heterosexual coupling produces children, and so we enact laws to try and regulate that behavior, despite obvious exceptions.
Third, and this has been covered - infertile couples support the model that we want. It affirms the arrangement we want heterosexual couples to follow. It supports the legitimate public policy aim, even if it isn’t directly impacting the infertile couple viz-a-viz kinds of their own.
Nobody needs marriage to “order procreation”. [/quote]
Sure we do, libertarian revisionism aside. Humans are prone to some bad results when left to their own devices. Marriage helps civilize men, and thus helps order procreation.[/quote]
I just kinda scanned for your posts. So sorry if this is covered elsewhere. There are only a few people on here who can disagree civilly, so it’s always good talking with you.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Kinda a wishy-washy answer that skipped his point though.
Question one: How long have you been here? (why do you speak Japanese?)
Question two: When are you going home?
lol
[/quote]
It’s only wishy washy if you do what you and raj are apparently doing and read into my original statement meanings that were never intended.
I am speaking in purely utilitarian terms, for the moment. In this case, “socially favored” would be that marriage arrangement that serves to replenish and regrow the population, provide new, productive taxpayers to support the upside down triangle of a welfare based infrastructure we have here, and has the highest likelihood of producing a child that will turn into a law-abiding, productive member of society who goes on to form a family of his own and not a criminal baby-daddy or similar who will tend to drain resources rather than augment them.
Speaking honestly, I really do not understand what you and raj are trying to demonstrate.[/quote]
Perhaps it’s simply a disagreement about the role of law in society. You seem to be arguing for an ideal. I think laws should exist to help “us” to muddle through a very complex and un-ideal world. Does that make sense? Let me know if I’ve misunderstood you.
[quote] Is this society racist? Youbetcha. Do I care? Sure as hell do, particularly with a son being born into it. Does it have anything at all to do with my point? Not one thing. The nuclear family unit of a single mother and a father happens to be the most beneficial arrangement overall, for this society or America, racist or not racist.
Let’s turn this on its head for a second, you guys that are arguing for the “right” of gays to be married to be officially recognized, do you disagree with this statement:
The superior familial arrangement for a stable, healthy society, and the most beneficial environment for a child to be raised in, is that of a single mother and a single father, married and living together.
If not, how so? [/quote]
[edit] well, I tried to write up a response twice and couldn’t get it out in a way that didn’t make me want to make this a PM rather than a public post.
Basically though, two points: 1) I’m not sure government should be most interested or only interested in the ideal/model you are suggesting. 2) The implication seems to be that “other than ideal” situations don’t have value or enough value to be recognized, I don’t agree with that and can easily see how it could be construed as offensive.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You’ve conveniently defined “socially favoured” in a manner to fit your argument. If we were to define the “greater good” as maintaining a homogeneous population and preventing the dilution of Japanese bloodlines, then your argument falls apart.
Why is it okay for you to acknowledge certain societal preferences while ignoring others?[/quote]
Stop, please. This isn’t 1941. I live in a country with a genuine welfare crisis on its hands. They care enough about the problem to subsidize the birth and health of my children, and to provide a monthly stipend for each child that increases for every child born. [/quote]
But they don’t care enough to allow your son to have dual citizenship nor increase immigration. If my wife ever decides to get American citizenship, she must give up “being” Japanese.
I was tempted to post the “turning Japanese” song here. “The nail that sticks up, gets hammered down” as they say. This is essentially your argument here, no?
[not sure if my tone is coming out here, I’m trying to be funny-ish here, not offensive.]
I tried to answer above, not sure if we’ll ever agree though. The basic point is that I’m not sure government should be creating laws based upon ideals. Especially since one man’s ideal is another man’s hell.
Good talking with you. I tried to answer honestly. In retrospect, I wish I had copied and pasted the response I deleted into a PM, but it’s time to pick up the wife and go to sleep, work, then the weekend. I’ll try to get back to this, but I’m not sure when, and I’m kinda afraid I won’t be able to find your posts in the sea of anger and foolishness that this thread will undoubtedly bring.
If you do see this, I hope you’re doing well. Have a good one.
EDIT: I think another entire page was posted in the time it took me to type and post this…lol Well, hopefully you catch this. [/quote]
I caught your post, Gambit, and appreciate them and the sentiment is certainly reciprocated.
I am not going to do what TBG used to call the “PWI shuffle,” here, I’ll just try and succinctly answer all of your points here.
Some of what I said above was a counter to a bunch of distractions that were being hurled every which way. To keep things simple: The government is not getting involved in ideals unless they extend the scope of “marriage” beyond what it presently is. Currently, they are involved in the business of promoting the survival of society and the species (promoting, not saving). The current model is ideal because it is necessary. That’s the key, and all future suggested arrangements can be easily tested against it. Sloth said it very well a couple of times above. If homosexuality stopped existing tomorrow, it would hardly issue as more than a tiny, distant blip on he radar screen of human history. If heterosexuality stopped existing tomorrow, there would no longer BE a human history.
Btw, see the PWI pow-wow thread. Chushin and I hooked up last weekend, finally, and had a great time. We talked about you, and wondered if you were ever going to get down south for a visit.
But that isn’t the purpose, it hasn’t changed. We don’t want to “maximize the number of intact homes for children” without first deciding what kind of home we want. And we want a home with the two biological parents - nothing else is equal or better.
And, no, LGBT couples are not just as capable. You meant to tell me you think that a child raised by his/her biological parents in an intact home are exactly as well off as on who isn’t (regardless of the arranagement)?
And you’ve got it all wrong - want to increase the number of “intact homes”? Make divorce harder.
[/quote]
Wow, this post really show just how out of touch with common sense this issue has made you. Read your own statement again, not as you may have intended in your head, but as you actually wrote it: “we want a home with the two biological parents - nothing else is equal or better.” I’m sure you were assuming everything is perfect in the relationship and behavior of two said biological parents but we all know in reality that isn’t the case OFTEN
This phrase is just horseshit and backwards thinking and I think you know it although doubt you’ll admit it: "want to increase the number of “intact homes”? Make divorce harder. " —Yeah that’ll do it, force two people that are abusive and can’t stand each other to stay together, that should work out great for the kids (eye roll)
Wow, this post really show just how out of touch with common sense this issue has made you. Read your own statement again, not as you may have intended in your head, but as you actually wrote it: “we want a home with the two biological parents - nothing else is equal or better.” I’m sure you were assuming everything is perfect in the relationship and behavior of two said biological parents but we all know in reality that isn’t the case OFTEN[/quote]
Nope, you have it precisely wrong - there is no perfect, only better. That is the point. I have no illusions about the perfection of heterosexual coupling - if I did, I’d be of the opinion that we don’t need the public policy marriage.
It is precisely because these relationships are imperfect that we need marriage in the first place, and whether this relationship is better than an alternative is a separate question (and easily answerable).
Generally, there is no better arrangement than for a child to be raised by his/her biological parents. There is nothing controversial about that statement.
Abusive relationship? Oh, that is an easy ground for divorce. I didn’t say make it harder when their is legitimate fault, which abuse certainly is. Absue has nothing to do with no-fault divorce.
Don’t work on your eye-rolls - work on understanding how legal marriage works. No one is suggesting making it harder for victims of abuse to get a divorce. Focus.
[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. [/quote]
Why, my sister and I would love to adopt a child. Can we get married? Marriage has nothing to do with raising adopted children. It has to do with making babies and raising them by the biological parents to become citizens.