[quote]Makavali wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Homophobia? Is that like Incestaphobia, Heterophobia, polygamyaphobia, or beastialityaphobia?
Don’t argue the semantics of the word just because your argument fails.[/quote]
An “aversion…” I’m a turnip-phobic!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
However, you might as well remove government from marriage if that’s the case. Just cut adults taxes and tell them to hire lawyers for property issues.[/quote]
I like the sound of that.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
An “aversion…” I’m a turnip-phobic![/quote]
I’m a Pumpkinphobe.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
However, you might as well remove government from marriage if that’s the case. Just cut adults taxes and tell them to hire lawyers for property issues.
I like the sound of that.[/quote]
People need to be upfront about doing away with state recognized marriage. And not, argue for MORE forms of recognition. Othewise, it does come off as an agenda to define marriage so broadly, that it really doesn’t mean anything. I’d be plenty happy to only recognize marriages carried out within the bounds of my religion. On the flipside, a gay Husband and Husband, or atheist could refuse to recognize mine. Whatever. I don’t need the state to exercise such a function. That’s what my church is there for.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
However, you might as well remove government from marriage if that’s the case. Just cut adults taxes and tell them to hire lawyers for property issues.
I like the sound of that.
People need to be upfront about doing away with state recognized marriage. And not, argue for MORE forms of recognition. Othewise, it does come off as an agenda to define marriage so broadly, that it really doesn’t mean anything. I’d be plenty happy to only recognize marriages carried out within the bounds of my religion. On the flipside, a gay Husband and Husband, or atheist could refuse to recognize mine. Whatever. I don’t need the state to exercise such a function. That’s what my church is there for.[/quote]
Its easy to say that when the form of marriage and family that your religion condones “happens” to be the same form of marriage (and supportive of the same form of family) that the government recognizes and rewards.
Btw, marriages between more than two people wouldnt always be polygamy. Polygamy is the pairing of one man with two or more women, polyandry is the pairing of one women with two or more men, and polyamory is the pairing of more than two people, including men and women (such as a man having two wives, and each of those wives having another husband).
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
However, you might as well remove government from marriage if that’s the case. Just cut adults taxes and tell them to hire lawyers for property issues.
I like the sound of that.
People need to be upfront about doing away with state recognized marriage. And not, argue for MORE forms of recognition. Othewise, it does come off as an agenda to define marriage so broadly, that it really doesn’t mean anything. I’d be plenty happy to only recognize marriages carried out within the bounds of my religion. On the flipside, a gay Husband and Husband, or atheist could refuse to recognize mine. Whatever. I don’t need the state to exercise such a function. That’s what my church is there for.
Its easy to say that when the form of marriage and family that your religion condones “happens” to be the same form of marriage (and supportive of the same form of family) that the government recognizes and rewards.
Btw, marriages between more than two people wouldnt always be polygamy. Polygamy is the pairing of one man with two or more women, polyandry is the pairing of one women with two or more men, and polyamory is the pairing of more than two people, including men and women (such as a man having two wives, and each of those wives having another husband).
[/quote]
Cool. So, any answers? I’m curious.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Btw, marriages between more than two people wouldnt always be polygamy. Polygamy is the pairing of one man with two or more women, polyandry is the pairing of one women with two or more men, and polyamory is the pairing of more than two people, including men and women (such as a man having two wives, and each of those wives having another husband).[/quote]
Actually it would be polygamy. You’re thinking of polygyny.
[quote]
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
BostonBarrister: please give me a logical reason, other than homophobia, that allowing gays to marry would negatively impact marriage or procreation among heterosexuals.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Here are two: It could affect the normative behavior of married people, and also affect the societal normative pressure on heterosexuals to marry. Read the links for more.
Now address each of my previous points please.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
…seriously?
You: It would cause problems?
Me: What problems and why?
You: Uh… it could affect how people act!
Your response here has told me nothing.
HOW AND WHY (I’ll use big letters so you can read them easier) would it affect the normative behavior of married people?
HOW AND WHY would it affect the societal normative pressure on heterosexuals to marry?
Quit repeating the same thing (that it could have an effect), and answer my fucking question.[/quote]
Tell you what: I’m not re-writing the articles contained in the links that you’re refusing to read. Read the links, particularly the first. Then if you have particularized issues, ask. I know very well that you haven’t read them, because not all of what’s in the links agrees with my positions, and you haven’t pointed this out, which would be the first thing you would do if you had read them. So go along like a good little chap and read up; and if you won’t, to borrow a Briticism, bugger off.
http://www.gideonsblog.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_gideonsblog_archive.html#105952165206390107
Secondly, I’ve considered your position, and I’ve realized I’ve been letting you frame the debate ever since you first failed to respond to my original points, so I’m going back there. Why should society in general take any risk, for any reason, to extend a behavioral incentive meant to produce a particular effect to a small minority that does not wish to follow the parameters that have been set up for that behavioral incentive? Particularly when said minority is not having its freedom to act impinged in any meaningful way?
Marriage is not all benefits - it’s also restrictions on freedom and imposition of responsibilities. Gays are finding this out, even without the tax break:
And unfortunately, from at least this perspective, youngish heterosexuals (no need for child marriage - just consider the decade of a person’s 20s) are increasingly opting out of accepting marriage and its attendant costs.
In Europe, which is at least a generation ahead of us in terms of undermining the normative expectations of marriage, they are having a fertility crisis ( http://www.nidi.knaw.nl/en/output/2006/sso-2006-03-nidi-beets.pdf/sso-2006-03-nidi-beets.pdf ) begotten at least in part by a marriage crisis ( http://www.unece.org/stats/trend/ch2.htm ). Is this related to gay marriage? Maybe ( https://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602280810.asp ); maybe not. But unless you can demonstrate it won’t, why should society take the risk of exacerbating the negative trends it’s trying to stem?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cool. So, any answers? I’m curious.[/quote]
Like you, I remain curious at this question that always goes ignored.
If we don’t let consenting adults define marriage as they want, isn’t it BIGOTRY and based on a PHOBIA, and of course no marriage law should be rooted on such motives?
(note the caps for emphasis)
Moral laws and their corollaries should ideally be based on the defining characteristics of what human beings are and what’s good for them as human beings. Empirical studies show that homosexuality is NOT a healthy state for individuals or societies. Therefore, homosexuality should not be encouraged and marriage between them, insofar as it encourages homosexuality, should not be allowed.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Moral laws and their corollaries should ideally be based on the defining characteristics of what human beings are and what’s good for them as human beings. Empirical studies show that homosexuality is NOT a healthy state for individuals or societies. Therefore, homosexuality should not be encouraged and marriage between them, insofar as it encourages homosexuality, should not be allowed.[/quote]
YOUR INTERPRETATION of empirical studies show that homosexuality is not healthy for society AS YOU DEFINE IT.
There fixed it for you.
I see you are working for the greater good again, you are an altruist at heart, always there to work for “society”…
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Homophobia? Is that like Incestaphobia, Heterophobia, polygamyaphobia, or beastialityaphobia?
Don’t argue the semantics of the word just because your argument fails.[/quote]
What argument would that be?
I just disagree with the use of the word.
“The usage of the word homophobia in its modern form is controversial as it may be used pejoratively against those with differing debatable value positions” [William O’Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, “Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues”, Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2005)]
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Moral laws and their corollaries should ideally be based on the defining characteristics of what human beings are and what’s good for them as human beings. Empirical studies show that homosexuality is NOT a healthy state for individuals or societies. Therefore, homosexuality should not be encouraged and marriage between them, insofar as it encourages homosexuality, should not be allowed.[/quote]
Especially if society has to pay for the results of the gay lifestyle.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cool. So, any answers? I’m curious.
Like you, I remain curious at this question that always goes ignored.
If we don’t let consenting adults define marriage as they want, isn’t it BIGOTRY and based on a PHOBIA, and of course no marriage law should be rooted on such motives?
(note the caps for emphasis)
[/quote]
I think a lot of people would agree.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Especially if society has to pay for the results of the gay lifestyle.[/quote]
What in the hell is the result? You say gays have a higher level of STDs… this effects hetero society… how exactly? People can’t be trusted to protect themselves during something as simple to protect as sex? The government has to do it for them?
You liberal slime.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Especially if society has to pay for the results of the gay lifestyle.
What in the hell is the result? You say gays have a higher level of STDs… this effects hetero society… how exactly? [/quote]
It affects society because most do not have health insurance so the government ends up paying for their healthcare. And in turn you pay for it from taxes.
[quote]
People can’t be trusted to protect themselves during something as simple to protect as sex? The government has to do it for them?
You liberal slime.[/quote]
Statistics would indicate that gays do a very poor job of protecting themselves from their own behavior.
And I know you aren’t calling me a liberal?
[quote]
Sloth wrote:
Cool. So, any answers? I’m curious.
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Like you, I remain curious at this question that always goes ignored.
If we don’t let consenting adults define marriage as they want, isn’t it BIGOTRY and based on a PHOBIA, and of course no marriage law should be rooted on such motives?
(note the caps for emphasis)
Beowolf wrote:
I think a lot of people would agree.[/quote]
With what? The predicate question in this sequence concerns polygamy, and how one would distinguish it.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Especially if society has to pay for the results of the gay lifestyle.
What in the hell is the result? You say gays have a higher level of STDs… this effects hetero society… how exactly?
It affects society because most do not have health insurance so the government ends up paying for their healthcare. And in turn you pay for it from taxes.
People can’t be trusted to protect themselves during something as simple to protect as sex? The government has to do it for them?
You liberal slime.
Statistics would indicate that gays do a very poor job of protecting themselves from their own behavior.
And I know you aren’t calling me a liberal?
[/quote]
So… things that make our health insurance bills go up are immoral? You do realize that WE, the healthy, non-obese people, cost the health care system FAR more than the sick right?
The extra years we live on average by far tip the balance. Wasn’t this literally just in an article 
My dads been saying this shit for years… if the healthy people didn’t outbalance the sick, insurance companies could never make any money.
And yes. Yes I am. The term liberal is used to describe someone who wants government intervention over personal responsibility around these parts.
By implying the government should discourage gay people from having gay sex, you are stating that the government knows what’s best for them better than they do. I may be doing it facetiously, but I am indeed calling you a liberal big-government slimeball. =D
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Especially if society has to pay for the results of the gay lifestyle.
What in the hell is the result? You say gays have a higher level of STDs… this effects hetero society… how exactly?
It affects society because most do not have health insurance so the government ends up paying for their healthcare. And in turn you pay for it from taxes.
People can’t be trusted to protect themselves during something as simple to protect as sex? The government has to do it for them?
You liberal slime.
Statistics would indicate that gays do a very poor job of protecting themselves from their own behavior.
And I know you aren’t calling me a liberal?
So… things that make our health insurance bills go up are immoral? You do realize that WE, the healthy, non-obese people, cost the health care system FAR more than the sick right?
The extra years we live on average by far tip the balance. Wasn’t this literally just in an article My dads been saying this shit for years… if the healthy people didn’t outbalance the sick, insurance companies could never make any money.
And yes. Yes I am. The term liberal is used to describe someone who wants government intervention over personal responsibility around these parts.
By implying the government should discourage gay people from having gay sex, you are stating that the government knows what’s best for them better than they do. I may be doing it facetiously, but I am indeed calling you a liberal big-government slimeball. =D
[/quote]
And he most definitely has no such problems with men who ride bikes, lift weights, or do other things that increase their risk of being insured.
What about professional athletes?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cool. So, any answers? I’m curious.
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Like you, I remain curious at this question that always goes ignored.
If we don’t let consenting adults define marriage as they want, isn’t it BIGOTRY and based on a PHOBIA, and of course no marriage law should be rooted on such motives?
(note the caps for emphasis)
Beowolf wrote:
I think a lot of people would agree.
With what? The predicate question in this sequence concerns polygamy, and how one would distinguish it.[/quote]
“If we don’t let consenting adults define marriage as they want, isn’t it BIGOTRY and based on a PHOBIA, and of course no marriage law should be rooted on such motives?”
Consensual polygamy/polyandry/polygyny ect should be illegal because… why?
Consenting adults over the age of 18 should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with each other.
I’m of the personal belief that marriage tax benefits should only apply when a couple has a child, adopted or otherwise. That way, the legal purpose of marriage (pro creation) is protected while allowing anyone who wants to have the marriage “label,” and the inheritance/insurance rights, can do so.
Question: Does California have a common law marriage law? If two men are room mates for seven years, do they have a common law marriage? Just curious.