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]
And the concept of marriage was made by whom?[/quote]
Uh, are you kidding? Is a joke? Are you unfamiliar with history of Western civilization?[/quote]
I think this is the general issue with the new generations, they never studied American culture or Western civilization. Every time I talk about Aristotle, I have to explain Aristotle.
I think this is the general issue with the new generations, they never studied American culture or Western civilization. Every time I talk about Aristotle, I have to explain Aristotle.[/quote]
Learn history? Like actual history?
But they’ve got a funny picture with an ironic statement on it - no need for book learnin’.
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]
No, it does not.
It orders child rearing.
Kids are and were born out of wedlock all the time.
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.[/quote]
That is a bold claim, given that if marriage is the preferred form of cohabitation it would make a strong point if gay people embraced it.
If you do not allow gay people to marry, you will always have a very vocal subgroup out there that lives an entirely different lifestyle.
[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.[/quote]
Yeah, right.
If there is to be a special protection for child rearing units it should apply to you and your sister.
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]
And the concept of marriage was made by whom?[/quote]
Uh, are you kidding? Is a joke? Are you unfamiliar with history of Western civilization?[/quote]
I think this is the general issue with the new generations, they never studied American culture or Western civilization. Every time I talk about Aristotle, I have to explain Aristotle.[/quote]
Well if you want to do history of marriage, it is about 1000 years old, when the CC could no longer stomach not to be in control over marriages because those whole private deals spoiled their whole wealth accumulation scheme.
I am perfectly aware that the average conservative will defend just about anything when it has survived a few decades, but lets not get snippy, shall we?
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:<<< Do you also believe that divorce should be illegal as well? >>>[/quote]The legality or illegality of anything is an incidental. Self worshiping, self obsessed, narcissistic hedonism is what is eating this country alive. We have cast off the private self restraint of our Christian roots that made self government possible and all the rest of this or that becoming publicly legal now is a symptom. Great to see you btw.
[/quote]
Morality though is a different argument than legality. If someone wants to believe that gay marriage is immoral, that is entirely their right. If that same person wants to deny other people rights though (that they would otherwise be granted if they chose to marry a different person, which isn’t really the same as what push is suggesting, since no one is allowed to marry multiple people, regardless of sexual orientation) that is where things get messy. This country was set up as a nation of laws to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority. Because we are governed by laws, the discussion of whether or not gay marriage should be legal must be one of legal matters, not of moral matters. I still believe that parents should be free to teach their children what is moral or immoral in regards to marriage, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. That is one’s right to religion/belief which is protected by the constitution and one of the things which makes the u.s unique/great IMO. [/quote]
This country was set up as a nation of laws to prevent the GOVERNMENT from oppressing the CITIZENS.
…And why the 1st Amendment to the constitution states
“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”…
[/quote]
No, the First Amendment does not state that.
C’mon man, at least get the most basic of quotes correct.[/quote]
LOL - I had to Google that. It appears to be an initial draft of the 1st Amendment proposed by James Madison. However the debate centered around religious liberty and the establishment clause was a restriction on the government so the citizens could worship the Christian denomination they chose, and where not restricted to Baptist only churches just because they lived in Rhode Island
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?
As I said earlier:
Some of us see marriage as nothing more than a contract between two people who want to tether their lives together. If marriage disappeared tomorrow people would still couple, reproduce and rear children. State recognition and tax benefits wouldn’t make or break that. You see committed parents and monogamous relationships in non-rational animals as well.[/quote]
Maybe your focus should be on fixing the tax code and not on redefining marriage.
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]
[/quote]
It also not so much as seeing marriage as a beneficial institution, but thinly veiled Atheistic bigotry designed to destroy another pillar of our society. Their design is not to strengthen marriage but to destroy it by redefining it out of existence.
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]
Please define what would constitute a “B” couple or a “T” couple
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?
As I said earlier:
Some of us see marriage as nothing more than a contract between two people who want to tether their lives together. If marriage disappeared tomorrow people would still couple, reproduce and rear children. State recognition and tax benefits wouldn’t make or break that. You see committed parents and monogamous relationships in non-rational animals as well.[/quote]
Maybe your focus should be on fixing the tax code and not on redefining marriage.
[/quote]
Maybe you should come up with a cogent argument against gay marriage. 13 pages in and still none that haven’t been refuted.
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]
Please define what would constitute a “B” couple or a “T” couple
[/quote]
LGBT is an umbrella term that covers a variety of people. Swap LGBT for Same-Sex couple.
That is a bold claim, given that if marriage is the preferred form of cohabitation it would make a strong point if gay people embraced it. [/quote]
Marriage isn’t simply a “preferred form of cohabitation” - it is preferred form of cohabitation for relationships that produce children. Who cares if gay people embrace it? As a society, we don’t much care.
So? It is a different lifestyle. So what?
Sure it does - by drawing rational lines about what marriage is and isn’t, we prevent it from being defined out of existence.
Not all relationships are equal or the same. Hetero is apples, gay is oranges. It would foolish to treat as alike unlike things.
Kids are and were born out of wedlock all the time.
There was a stigma attached to it, that is all. [/quote]
Yes, it does, because state recognition of marriage helped buttress the highly useful stigma.[/quote]
So how is that working for you right now?
edit: let me add to that, obviously it is not working right now. If it is a means to an end, and that is the conservative argument, it fails.
What rationale could be behind excluding people that are willing to embrace it, if not anti gay sentiment?
That serves to undermine your position, because if an already weakened position must be defended just to keep the faggots out, is it really worth protecting?
With respect to marriage? Marriage is doing a fine job of helping in that regard, and always has, but now the hole that marriage helps plug on the ship is too big - libertine social values that have crept into society that tell people that the stigma is just a form of oppression and that people should ignore it and do what feels good have undermined the stigma marriage was designed to help.
Marriage isn’t failing us - we’re failing the institution of marriage.
With respect to marriage? Marriage is doing a fine job of helping in that regard, and always has, but now the hole that marriage helps plug on the ship is too big - libertine social values that have crept into society that tell people that the stigma is just a form of oppression and that people should ignore it and do what feels good have undermined the stigma marriage was designed to help.
Marriage isn’t failing us - we’re failing the institution of marriage.
But, hey, thanks libertarianism. [/quote]
Now that is just nonsense.
If you have an aim, offer a way to achieve it.
If your vision does not serve a purpose in todays reality, it will be discarded.
To claim that we “failed” an abstract ideal is nonsense if that ideal is apparently unable to shift with changing mores.
There will be new forms of cohabitation, I am disappointed in your conservative credentials regarding an unalterable human nature.
You may be more liberal than you think and your strong opposition to libertarianism draws from that.