Traditional, rational. Rational, traditional. One and the same.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I didn’t ignore it. In fact, I taunted you for getting all wish-washy all of sudden. “Well, uh, gee, see, um…” For a guy to call someone a bigot, suddenly ‘marriage’ might have a definition. Yours just includes a great big whopping one other form of human relationship/arrangement. Gosh Mr. Civil-Rights. Mr. I’m-not-bigoted-against-consenting-adults. It was one of the weakest, and frankly, cowardly responses I’ve seen on the forum.
[/quote]
See this is what I’m talking about. Not fully addressing my argument.
Every relationship needs to be justified separately before benefits are given. Polygamy has it’s own burden that must be met completely separate from gay marriage.
I used this example already. Handguns are legal but nuclear weapons are not… see how that works? You can legalize weapons but aren’t required to legalize all weapons?
[/quote]
Ooooh, so the polyamorous homosexual arrangement has to grovel to you. Explaining themselves to you so they can be deemed as worthy as the crucial and critical two person homosexual relationship. Except for that fact that the latter isn’t crucial and critical, either. Gay marriage is in no way critical for this country. Not in the past, not now, never. Homosexuality could vanish tomorrow and it’d be a curious news story. But, yeah, it’s your pet project, so we get the spectacle of you throwing out words like “bigot”, while other consenting adults can’t even get a damn answer from you. Coward.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I didn’t ignore it. In fact, I taunted you for getting all wish-washy all of sudden. “Well, uh, gee, see, um…” For a guy to call someone a bigot, suddenly ‘marriage’ might have a definition. Yours just includes a great big whopping one other form of human relationship/arrangement. Gosh Mr. Civil-Rights. Mr. I’m-not-bigoted-against-consenting-adults. It was one of the weakest, and frankly, cowardly responses I’ve seen on the forum.
[/quote]
See this is what I’m talking about. Not fully addressing my argument.
Every relationship needs to be justified separately before benefits are given. Polygamy has it’s own burden that must be met completely separate from gay marriage.
I used this example already. Handguns are legal but nuclear weapons are not… see how that works? You can legalize weapons but aren’t required to legalize all weapons?
[/quote]
Ooooh, so the polyamorous homosexual arrangement has to grovel to you. Explaining themselves to you so they can be deemed as worthy as the crucial and critical two person homosexual relationship. Except for that fact that the latter isn’t crucial and critical, either. Gay marriage is in now way critical to this country. Not in the past, not now, never. Homosexuality could vanish tomorrow and it’d be a curious news story. But, yeah, it’s your pet project, so we get you awkwardly throwing out bigotry, while other consenting adults can’t even get a damn answer from you. Coward.[/quote]
It’s not grovel to me, -lol. Was that a joke? As one of you anti-gay marriage guys mentioned public policy is made to provide benefit for society. As I explained earlier ti meets that criteria.
Now tell me, why does homosexual marriage have to serve a critical or crucial function in order to be legalized? Much of public policy provides benefit to society but is far from critical or crucial.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Now tell me, why does homosexual marriage have to serve a critical or crucial function in order to be legalized? Much of public policy provides benefit to society but is far from critical or crucial.
[/quote]
Um, because we’re not interested in patting people on the back just for the sake of patting them on the back? We are discussing STATE RECOGNIZED marriage. To not have a crucial and critical function to justify elevating homosexual relationships through title, status, recognition, and privilege, even over friendships, would be bigotry. We aren’t discussing marriage in a stateless world. This isn’t an equal rights conversation, not matter how much you want it to be. See the libertarian/anarchist “no recognizing marriage at all, means not discriminating against consenting adults” stance for that. We are literally talking about having the state put one/some human relationships up on a pedestal for emulation. The state should have no business doing this without irreplaceable, crucial, and critical circumstances making the human arrangement, well, absolutely critical. ‘The reproductive sexes’ speaks to that critical and crucial component.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I didn’t ignore it. In fact, I taunted you for getting all wish-washy all of sudden. “Well, uh, gee, see, um…” For a guy to call someone a bigot, suddenly ‘marriage’ might have a definition. Yours just includes a great big whopping one other form of human relationship/arrangement. Gosh Mr. Civil-Rights. Mr. I’m-not-bigoted-against-consenting-adults. It was one of the weakest, and frankly, cowardly responses I’ve seen on the forum.
[/quote]
See this is what I’m talking about. Not fully addressing my argument.
Every relationship needs to be justified separately before benefits are given. Polygamy has it’s own burden that must be met completely separate from gay marriage.
I used this example already. Handguns are legal but nuclear weapons are not… see how that works? You can legalize weapons but aren’t required to legalize all weapons?
[/quote]
Ooooh, so the polyamorous homosexual arrangement has to grovel to you. Explaining themselves to you so they can be deemed as worthy as the crucial and critical two person homosexual relationship. Except for that fact that the latter isn’t crucial and critical, either. Gay marriage is in no way critical for this country. Not in the past, not now, never. Homosexuality could vanish tomorrow and it’d be a curious news story. But, yeah, it’s your pet project, so we get the spectacle of you throwing out words like “bigot”, while other consenting adults can’t even get a damn answer from you. Coward.[/quote]
I am not sure if this has been addressed but, would not the polygamy argument only work if you believe homosexuals are not born gay but, choose it?
If they are born gay they can do nothing about it. They enter monogamous relationships and wish to have the same benefits that come with being married (some type of civil union can resolve this). These couples provide stable homes for children in need, what is the issue? YES the biological parents perhaps would be better but, 1)There are exceptions ie. drug addicts and 2) Children will continue to be given up for adoption.
A man wanting to get married to multiple women chooses to, whether it be for more sex, children, income, or personal beliefs it is a choice.
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
A man wanting to get married to multiple women chooses to, whether it be for more sex, children, income, or personal beliefs it is a choice.
[/quote]
It is? Seems to me attraction to multiple partners is about as old as humanity itself. Where is your confidence coming from to make such an absolute statement?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Um, because we’re not interested in patting people on the back just for the sake of patting them on the back?[/quote]
Huh? It’s not just about patting them on back.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
We are discussing STATE RECOGNIZED marriage. To not have a crucial and critical function to justify elevating homosexual relationships through title, status, recognition, and privilege, even over friendships, would be bigotry. [/quote]
No it wouldn’t. Public policy is made to benefit society. If a relationship type serves no benefit or causes harm to society it has no reason for recognition.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
We aren’t discussing marriage in a stateless world. This isn’t an equal rights conversation, not matter how much you want it to be. See the libertarian/anarchist “no recognizing marriage” stance for that. We are literally talking about having the state put one/some human relationships up on a pedestal for emulation. The state should have no business doing this without irreplaceable, crucial, and critical circumstances making the human arrangement, well, absolutely critical. ‘The reproductive sexes’ speaks to that critical and crucial component.
[/quote]
While I’m not sure what would happen if state recognition went away completely, I think part of the government’s job is to encourage people’s rights and freedoms. So no I don’t necessarily agree that the state has no business in human arrangements outside of man-woman unions.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
A man wanting to get married to multiple women chooses to, whether it be for more sex, children, income, or personal beliefs it is a choice.
[/quote]
It is? Seems to me attraction to multiple partners is about as old as humanity itself. Where is your confidence coming from to make such an absolute statement?
[/quote]
Are you saying you think marriage is not a choice just like sexuality?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
A man wanting to get married to multiple women chooses to, whether it be for more sex, children, income, or personal beliefs it is a choice.
[/quote]
It is? Seems to me attraction to multiple partners is about as old as humanity itself. Where is your confidence coming from to make such an absolute statement?
[/quote]
Are you saying you think marriage is not a choice just like sexuality?[/quote]
No. Re-read.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Let’s turn this on its head for just a moment here. Gay marriage proponents, please explain, using concise, unambiguous language, WHY, exactly, do homosexual unions deserve to be rewarded with the significant legal and monetary privileges, benefits, and equivalence of status that married heterosexual couples enjoy?
Our side has provided the answer and specifics to this question ad nauseum, and only the most brain dead gay marriage proponents have dared to suggest that our reasons are anything other than rational and viable.
So, let’s have it. What is it that makes gay marriage so great? There must be something that sets it above other relationships and on “equal” footing with heterosexual marriage. What is it? Enquiring minds want to know.[/quote]
Uhh… Wasn’t it explained several times to you?
Homosexual couples can provide stables homes for children.
[/quote]
You must have missed that word I put in quotation marks in my final paragraph. Your “can” in a limited sense on one very limited point, and even then still not meeting the criterion that define “BEST arrangement for children” is not anywhere near reason enough to reward a group with the substantial benefits that married heterosexuals deserve.
It doesn’t matter how many times the above was “explained to me.” I’m not a dullard. I understand your argument. It’s just not a good one.
As for the rest of this thread, which has again blown up to two new pages as I’ve been sleeping, I’ll have to try and get to it (my) tonight. Going out to model my ideal heterosexual nuclear family today on a very rare day off. For the greater good of society, of course.
(^_~)
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
[quote]qsar wrote:
I’ve said this before but I’ll repeat so you don’t have to look it up:
I think marriage should not be a government institution at all. Why is the government defining marriage? Why do I have to tell the government and get its permission to shack up with someone? What did people do before it was part of the government? Where they not married? The government shouldn’t be in the middle of this.
If you’re Christian, go have your Christian wedding at a church. If you’re Jewish, go have it at Temple. If you’re atheist, go have it wherever you want. But the government shouldn’t be involved. You can do power of attorney and other social contracts such as prenups to cover the legal aspects of it. The beauty of this is, anyone can create a contract with anyone, and no one cares! It just has to pass contract law.
If we as people can choose one thing in life, one thing that no one can intrude on, one thing the government should not touch, shouldn’t dictate, shouldn’t regulate, wouldn’t that be love? Somehow that one thing has not only been made part of the system, and not only does everyone accept it mindlessly and sheepleshly, but people actually defend it vehemently to remain government regulated!!!
It is mind-boggling to me. Girls don’t feel they are “married” unless the government gives them their blessing. It is insane. Girl says, “yes, I want to have sex with you, but the government hasn’t given us the ok yet”. Sounds like a horror sci-fi big-brother scenario. I’m amazed at how people are such lambs about such important matters.
Some people say, “I agree but my girlfriend wants to be ‘married’”. Why? Extortion? Because, if you leave her, it’ll cost you? Is that what you want? The “cheaper to keep her” deal? Would she want you to stay just because it’s a hassle and expensive to leave? Do you really want to tie yourself down to a person with the “if he leaves me I’ll make him pay dearly for it” mentality? The true test of a relationship is if there is absolutely no consequence to either one leaving and both choose to stay for no other reason than love.[/quote]
This x9000. I think that’s the best way to go about is for the government to leave it alone completely.
CS[/quote]
I’m in this camp too, but as that doesn’t seem likely to happen, it’s necessary for the government to not discriminate while it is involved in marriage.
I also hope (and this isn’t being a smartass, I’m serious here) that someday, assuming government is still in it, polygamous and incestuous individuals will be able to marry as well. There is no reason to deny those types of relationships any more than there is to deny homosexual relationships; it’s just our current landscape of social values still frown on polyamorous and incestuous relationships. Just as homosexual and interracial relationships used to be frowned upon.
It’s slow progress, but I imagine in a century from now people will look back at this issue the same way we look back at something like women’s suffrage.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
What do you find compelling?
I want to hear it. What’s happened here is that AC doesn’t know the gay marriage argument very well so the anti-gay marriage folk jumped on him pretty hard.[/quote]
Well, I posted in this thread simply because it was the one I had open in my browser at the time (I’m lazy like that). My comment might be more applicable to the other active thread, but, since both are lumped together in my head and the main players are largely the same, I didn’t think it would be a huge issue to give props here.
Knowing that, do you still want to know what I find compelling about the secular case against gay marriage?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
You must have missed that word I put in quotation marks in my final paragraph. Your “can” in a limited sense on one very limited point, and even then still not meeting the criterion that define “BEST arrangement for children” is not anywhere near reason enough to reward a group with the substantial benefits that married heterosexuals deserve.
[/quote]
-
Prove that a man-woman parenting household is the best form and that LGBT make for inferior parents in comparison. I know you’re not a dullard but “because I say so” isn’t evidence.
-
Assuming for a second that you are indeed correct, LGBT parents are inferior to straight couples. An LGBT household would still be a HUGE improvement for a child in foster care. Have you ever looked at statistics of children in foster care? They’re atrocious.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
What do you find compelling?
I want to hear it. What’s happened here is that AC doesn’t know the gay marriage argument very well so the anti-gay marriage folk jumped on him pretty hard.[/quote]
Well, I posted in this thread simply because it was the one I had open in my browser at the time (I’m lazy like that). My comment might be more applicable to the other active thread, but, since both are lumped together in my head and the main players are largely the same, I didn’t think it would be a huge issue to give props here.
Knowing that, do you still want to know what I find compelling about the secular case against gay marriage?[/quote]
Sure. I followed both threads.
[quote]Tumbles wrote:
I also hope (and this isn’t being a smartass, I’m serious here) that someday, assuming government is still in it, polygamous and incestuous individuals will be able to marry as well. There is no reason to deny those types of relationships any more than there is to deny homosexual relationships; it’s just our current landscape of social values still frown on polyamorous and incestuous relationships. Just as homosexual and interracial relationships used to be frowned upon. [/quote]
Actually there is. Do you know what happens when two siblings reproduce with each other?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Tumbles wrote:
I also hope (and this isn’t being a smartass, I’m serious here) that someday, assuming government is still in it, polygamous and incestuous individuals will be able to marry as well. There is no reason to deny those types of relationships any more than there is to deny homosexual relationships; it’s just our current landscape of social values still frown on polyamorous and incestuous relationships. Just as homosexual and interracial relationships used to be frowned upon. [/quote]
Actually there is. Do you know what happens when two siblings reproduce with each other? [/quote]
Do we think it’s right to prevent people with mental illnesses, physical deformities, low IQ, or any other problems from reproducing? There’s no reason that should be different than pregnancies from incest.
In addition to that, marriage is not about producing children, so such an issue is irrelevant to whether or not their marriage should be legally recognized.
Sorry, moved this and the next post from the other You’ve Been Served thread because they are more appropriate to this one.
[quote]Tumbles wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
So, let’s talk about the elephant in the room.
I don’t know if Obama’s stance on gay marriage has been talked about, but do you think it has helped or hurt him ?[/quote]
Didn’t know the elephant was in this room.[/quote]
I think he means the distraction in the room.[/quote]
Ah yes. The government discriminating against its citizens under the law is always such a meaningless and distracting issue. Has no relevance on our lives at all![/quote]
Who is being discriminated against, and how? Be specific.
And real quick before I walk out the door. @raj in particular but anyone is free to answer:
Are you contending that homosexual married relationships are EQUAL to heterosexual ones?
Like, exactly as important?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
You must have missed that word I put in quotation marks in my final paragraph. Your “can” in a limited sense on one very limited point, and even then still not meeting the criterion that define “BEST arrangement for children” is not anywhere near reason enough to reward a group with the substantial benefits that married heterosexuals deserve.
[/quote]
-
Prove that a man-woman parenting household is the best form and that LGBT make for inferior parents in comparison. I know you’re not a dullard but “because I say so” isn’t evidence.
-
Assuming for a second that you are indeed correct, LGBT parents are inferior to straight couples. An LGBT household would still be a HUGE improvement for a child in foster care. Have you ever looked at statistics of children in foster care? They’re atrocious.
[/quote]
And here we have the reset button getting pressed again.
1.) Look up the thread about every 10 posts for where Sloth, thunderbolt or I have addressed this about 200 times combined over the past month. YOU need to back up your claims of equality. E-QUA-LI-TY, meaning, the same, exact value. No net loss and possible net gain and where does the change take place?
I am not being condescending in the slightest when I say that you will lose this argument if you continue to try and assert this. Hint: Sloth has mentioned I don’t know how many times now what would happen if homosexual relationships disappeared overnight, and what would happen if hetero ones did the same.
2.) Thunderbolt has already provided a viable solution if there is some rampant Dickensonian problem with feral homeless or orphaned children going on in America. Cliff notes: There’s not and this is not a compelling reason to provide a new niche group with benefits massively out of proportion to the service it might provide.