[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
This solution is just calling marriage by a different name. Which brings up the issue, why is the label so important in the first place? I don’t see why this couldn’t accomplish the same thing.[/quote]
Because the government is not (and never has been) simply in the business of rewarding people for their choices in any old relationship. The label matters because the label sets a certain relationship above and apart from other relationships because society has an interest in promoting that relationship, not so much the others.
Seriously.[/quote]
Not like any of us has said this already 6000 times or so.
Yet this specific point, the actual crux of this issue, will be ignored, again, because there IS NO getting around it. As therapeutic marriage opponents muleheadedly refuse to budge one inch from their bigoted position.
[…]
Heterosexual married couples, as a general rule, provide an absolutely essential service to society. Many services, actually, the repercussions of which are manifold in turn. Homosexual unions do not provide any of these essential services, and as such, have no business being rewarded as if they do. Again, this is the crux of the matter.
If homosexual couples are to be rewarded, then why not college roommates? What makes this particular pairing so much more special than 3 fishing buddies who’ve committed to lifelong bachelorship and a common cabin on the Potomak?
[/quote]
That can and should be disputed.
First of all, you assert that the government hands out rewards for proper behaviour. Without questioning the moral aspect of it, society does that, too.
Both don’t overlap neatly.
Someone may be a hero in the eyes of citizens but is officially condemned until 100 years later, where this may just reverse.
So from that angle, your argument merely says that state officials are prudent to reward a certain behaviour they deem constructive. There’s little objectivity to it.
Seriously, since when are government incentives the moral measuring stick?
Affirmative action, for instance, is widely frowned upon in these fora.
Where is the difference?
As for a naturalistic argument, that ship has long sailed. We won’t die out - in actuality, this argument must do a u-turn and reward couples for not procreating.
We are already too many people, so not fathering 2.2 children seems a rational, commendable thing.
Also, looking at the technical side of it, it doesn’t look like we’ll lose the ability to procreate if we grant gays full rights to marry. And those already mentioned alternative methods of making children and new models of parenthood are simply here to stay, wether one likes it or not.