Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.
Thanks, next please. I believe we've heard enough of Mr. Kolasinksi's sad ethics.
rumborak
I like how he uses the term "propagating society" versus "having children". It allows him to ignore all the heterosexual relationships that don't and aren't intended to have children, while implying that gay marriage is a social malaise.
I don't want any drama. I just want to listen to serious and fair responses to the article I provided. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, please, shall we make an attempt to discuss this like fair-minded adults, everyone?
QuoteThe biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?
This slippery slope stuff is pretty ridiculous. Is there anything wrong with the marriage of two men and three woman? If so, that’s your basis for denying marital recognition. If not, then there’s no harm done. The same goes for the more incestuous examples.
But in all seriousness, if you think that marriage is about nothing other than sexual love and children, you either aren’t married or you probably shouldn’t be married. There’s an element of stability. Of finality. There’s a comfort in knowing that should something happen to you, somebody else will take care for you. In sickness and in health. In good times and bad. And there’s a warmth in knowing that you would do the same for somebody else. The marital bond, while voluntary, is a family bond.QuoteHomosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
Yes. Marital chaos. Like in Iowa. It’s that secret sort of marital chaos that only manifests itself as Midwestern practicality.
From that perspective, the entire foundation of his premise is baseless. The fact that homosexuals can't do something that half the people screw up anyway seems like a wash to me.
I'm not taking any sides at all...honestly. But I'm a little shocked (and for the record, I'm not exactly a n00b here...I know Omega's history, but let's be objective here).
This article *IS* being attacked with the same vitriol that the opposing side uses. Most people here are not really articulating. I think that, in particular, the point he brings up about having a male and female role model in the household is being completely blown off and dismissed with * PREJUDGMENT*...
As an outsider.... I think Omega (who I usually disagree with b/c I feel he's often far too antagonistic) has actually brought something from a new perspective to the table. (I was surprised myself) But almost none of the responses has had anything intelligent or thought out to say on the matter. You're reacting with the same prejudice that you criticize....IMO, anyway.
I'm not taking any sides at all...honestly. But I'm a little shocked (and for the record, I'm not exactly a n00b here...I know Omega's history, but let's be objective here).
This article *IS* being attacked with the same vitriol that the opposing side uses. Most people here are not really articulating. I think that, in particular, the point he brings up about having a male and female role model in the household is being completely blown off and dismissed with * PREJUDGMENT*...
As an outsider.... I think Omega (who I usually disagree with b/c I feel he's often far too antagonistic) has actually brought something from a new perspective to the table. (I was surprised myself) But almost none of the responses has had anything intelligent or thought out to say on the matter. You're reacting with the same prejudice that you criticize....IMO, anyway.
Exactly who is this addressed to? I feel like several of us have had reasonably well thought-out responses.
As for his point about children needing both a male and a female role model, I thought I addressed it quite explicitly already.
His own article states that "the differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy". He uses this to suggest that men and women play different parenting roles, and that children need both of those distinct parenting roles. What he ignores is the idea that a man could play a 'woman's' parenting role or a woman could play a 'man's' parental role. As he said, parental roles go beyond anatomy - it's not that a child needs one role model with a penis and one with a vagina. It's about behavior, about the roles the parents take in raising the child. So if a woman can behave the same way as a traditional 'father figure', why does it matter, then, that she is not anatomically male?
And this is setting aside any argument about whether or not a child actually does need a 'mother figure' and 'father figure'. I'm accepting for the sake of discussion that they do need these things, and I'm only asserting that parents of either gender can play either role.
Again: it goes beyond anatomy. His own words. His assertion is that men and women are inherently different in parenting styles. I challenge this assertion. What about heterosexual men who are just feminine, or heterosexual women with masculine traits? Are they also unfit to raise children because they don't adhere to their gender roles?
Jammin, no one responded with prejudice. It's just that we've had pages of this exact same debate before. So this isn't a new argument to us it's just omega repeating it but thinking its better this time because an atheist said it. No one here is being prejudiced and most of the responses are being logical. Perhaps you just agree with omega in this case and don't agree with us.Ya, I don't really see how the authors beliefs matter one bit. It's a fallacy to think the source of an argument matters, and it seems to me that the arguments being given by this atheists are the same one's we've heard.
Lots of stupid, bigoted, self-centered straight people are raising stupid, bigoted, self-centered little assholes even as we speak.
Oh look another thread by you about this. Should be fun.
Wait, weren't you told not to post here anymore?
EDIT: Yea more of the same. "Gays can't have kids naturally so they can't get married because obviously marriage exists for no other reason than to have kids".
We've heard it.
my opinion of omega hasn't changed
Am I missing something here?
A thread (this thread) has been started that's:
1) on a topic that is currently the topic of another thread.
2) by a poster that was banned (albeit temp) for his actions on said topic.
The poster had, in the original thread, ad nauseum, stated his premise and argument on the topic.
The majority of the posters disagreed on the premise, and therefore arguement, as it had no historical or factual basis.
The original thread went on with the poster banned......
Yet here we are again, with a thread stating the same premise and arguement?
3. Sure you can say that it's better for a heterosexual couple to adopt than a homosexual couple, and you can even use whatever logic you want on that. However that whole "is it better to leave them in an institution or let them be adopted by a same sex couple" isn't a random made up scenario. Right now there are currently over 500,000 children that aren't being adopted. The odds of 100% of those children being adopted by a heterosexual couple are 0. So by blocking homosexual couples from being able to adopt, you're making sure a lot of those kids STAY in orphanages. If heterosexual couples were going to adopt all of those kids, then there wouldn't be a problem.
But one would be gravely mistaken to confuse the subordinate purposes of marriage with its main and most important purpose: the creating and nurturing of the next generation of society.
Traditional Wedding Vows 1:
I, (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.
Traditional Wedding Vows 2:
I, (name), take you, (name), to be my [opt: lawfully wedded] (husband/wife), my constant friend, my faithful partner and my love from this day forward. In the presence of God, our family and friends, I offer you my solemn vow to be your faithful partner in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, and in joy as well as in sorrow. I promise to love you unconditionally, to support you in your goals, to honor and respect you, to laugh with you and cry with you, and to cherish you for as long as we both shall live.
Traditional Wedding Vows 3 (traditional civil ceremony vows):
(Name), I take you to be my lawfully wedded (husband/wife). Before these witnesses I vow to love you and care for you as long as we both shall live. I take you with all your faults and your strengths as I offer myself to you with my faults and strengths. I will help you when you need help, and I will turn to you when I need help. I choose you as the person with whom I will spend my life.
Traditional Wedding Vows 4:
I, (name), take you, (name), to be my beloved (wife/husband), to have and to hold you, to honor you, to treasure you, to be at your side in sorrow and in joy, in the good times, and in the bad, and to love and cherish you always. I promise you this from my heart, for all the days of my life.
Some other thread on the same subject went bad?
Some other thread on the same subject went bad?
Yup.
This one hasn't yet, and I'm sure bosk will lock it if it does.
Some other thread on the same subject went bad?
Yup.This one hasn't yet, and I'm sure bosk will lock it if it does.
Again, not seeing what the big deal is.
Actually, that's where we should make the divide. Instead of labeling all couples as "homosexual" and "heterosexual", we should label all couples as being "people who would make good parents" and "people who would make bad parents", and we should make marriage illegal for the second group.Hell yeah. :tup
On the flipside, we have homosexual couples. They won't make babies no matter how vigorously they have sex
I seem to be talking about gender roles, these most poisonous and inhibiting of social constructs
Actually, that's where we should make the divide. Instead of labeling all couples as "homosexual" and "heterosexual", we should label all couples as being "people who would make good parents" and "people who would make bad parents", and we should make marriage illegal for the second group.
asserted that kids are basically weeds who will pretty much raise themselves in any environment.
QuoteI seem to be talking about gender roles, these most poisonous and inhibiting of social constructs
I know this is an aside, but this is a little extreme IMO. To some extent, gender roles are a reality. In general, there are things that men and women, respectively, are better equipped for biologically than the other. That is okay, and there are plenty of exceptions, which is okay too; it's not poisonous or inhibiting. They're just generalizations, a useful but oft-misused tool that we nonetheless invoke all the time in all kinds of different matters.
QuoteActually, that's where we should make the divide. Instead of labeling all couples as "homosexual" and "heterosexual", we should label all couples as being "people who would make good parents" and "people who would make bad parents", and we should make marriage illegal for the second group.
I know you're not being completely serious with this fascist idea ( :biggrin:), but I was talking to a co-worker about this very thing the other day. He pointed out that people have been raising kids since the dawn of humanity (obviously), and asserted that kids are basically weeds who will pretty much raise themselves in any environment. There are lots of examples of people who everybody might think of as great parents or at least good examples, but who end up somehow putting out horrible brats that grow into shitty adults. Conversely, there are some great people who come out of terrible childhoods with negative parental influence, if any at all. But common sense tells you that if somebody's primary example growing up--their parent--is a "good person," then it's at least more likely that they'll turn out to be similar themselves. But regardless, it's impossible to gather data about this stuff, because like you said, it would be immensely unethical and impractical to do so.
-J
1) There is actually not as much scientific evidence for the advantages of heterosexual parenting as you claim there to be. The author of the original article you posted concedes this; he points to one article that supports his viewpoint, but then admits that there is on the whole no reliable scientific evidence in his defense because conducting that experiment would obviously be ethically dubious.
2) It is no longer true that same-sex adoptive couples are an exception to the greater rule. A quick Google search pointed me to this article (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21/adoptions-spiked-among-gay-couples_n_1023885.html), which shows that in 2009, 21,740 gay couples had adopted a child, up from about 6,500 9 years beforehand. That's 32,751 children living with gay couples in 2009. This article (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/us/14adoption.html?pagewanted=all) says this trend is occurring because A) we have a lot of children waiting for adoption (about 115,000), and B) because gays are seeing greater acceptance from government and adoption agencies as well as society as a whole.
Keep in mind that these figures are from 2009, which means they're probably significantly higher now should the trend have continued (a safe assumption), and that these figures are vastly lower than what they could be if there weren't legislation in place to prohibit or otherwise restrict gay adoption (which is the case for about half the states in the Union).
3) I feel like I shouldn't have to say this, but I should point out that loving relationships between homosexuals are not analogous to loving relationships between fathers and daughters or siblings. Loving relationships between homosexuals are true romantic-sexual relationships such as you would find between heterosexuals. Loving relationships between fathers and daughters and siblings are in all but a few cases simple family ties. There are numerous psycho-biological processes in place to prevent that sort of relationship from progressing to the sexual stage; for instance, there's a documented psychological effect that prevents you from being sexually attracted to someone should you spend a lot of time with them or grow up with them (I forget its name, could someone help me out?).
4) You bring up that the sexually activities of homosexuals do not naturally lead to children. You are right, of course, but this does not make useless their marriage. In fact, this trait is actually a boon to society. Homosexual parenting is actually valuable because homosexual parents have to try very, very hard to get children. Let's face it: a lot of children of heterosexual parents are "accidents", and it's safe to say that many of these "accidents" are being raised in subpar conditions because the parents were either emotionally or financially unprepared to parent. You've said before that you're young, Omega (I've assumed you're either high school or college), so you shouldn't have much trouble thinking of a few children who would be orders of magnitude better off had their parents waited a few years to conceive. The problem is arguably worse in urban areas; most of the parents in the projects, for instance, would probably have put off their pregnancies by a very long while if they had been able. I could tell you horror stories about the heterosexual household I grew up in, of course, but I'm sure that's not necessary (let's just say you're talking to one of the very "accidents" I'm talking about).
On the flipside, we have homosexual couples. They won't make babies no matter how vigorously they have sex, and this is a good thing, because they are, by definition, not raising children when they're not ready. Meanwhile, the adoption application process is extremely rigorous and is meant only to give away children to families that are able to raise them adeptly. Further, homosexual couples have to try particularly hard to adopt because there are so many roadblocks in place to try to stop them. The effect of this is that homosexual adoptive couples tried really, really hard for a baby and waited a very long time for one; in other words, homosexual couples with children, generally speaking, have to be ready to raise children. Because heterosexual couples are not held to that same requirement before they have children, one could very easily make the argument that homosexual parents are, all other things being equal, superior.
5) As I've said before, a few times, it's very common to claim that marriage exists to support procreation, but there is no evidence that this is the case, and you should provide some of that evidence for us if you're going to make an argument with such concrete social consequences.
6) The last point you made was particularly weak, Omega, and I'm a little surprised you're supporting it with so much veracity. I don't know why it's such a big deal that we need to teach our boys how to be "real men" in the first place, or what the two words even mean, or why a woman couldn't explain the concept to a boy if it's such a big deal. Menstruation and bra-purchasing are not difficult concepts, and two men would easily be able to handle explaining them to the girls (and if they were truly lost for some reason, they could consult the internet or their female friends, two powerful resources).
I seem to be talking about gender roles, these most poisonous and inhibiting of social constructs, a lot on this forum lately. Anyway, we don't need our politicians making legislation to support gender roles, or to otherwise endorse the idea that a person is necessarily the same as everybody else of the same gender. Men can do things women can do, and women can do things men can do, and I'm sick and tired of people claiming that men can't do X, Y, and Z because those are things that would be better handled by girls, as if they possessed some intrinsic knowledge we didn't. Half of the world is men, and half is women; in each group, there are people who would make good parents, and people who would make bad parents.
Actually, that's where we should make the divide. Instead of labeling all couples as "homosexual" and "heterosexual", we should label all couples as being "people who would make good parents" and "people who would make bad parents", and we should make marriage illegal for the second group.
a woman could provide all the benefits of a man. If such is true, then, conceivably, we should also allow single men or single women to adopt as well, considering that the role a man or a woman has been determined to be interchangeable.
I'm frankly perturbed that many people are still peddling this troubling pseudo-argument against the understanding of marriage. It's really a courtesy that I'm willing to even acknowledge it. Marriage, so understood, is grounded in a reasoned inquiry as to determine its purpose and is supplanted by centuries of tradition. To insist that "it has never existed that way" or to demand "evidence" for the most reasoned understanding of marriage seems to me to signal either deliberate obfuscation or otherwise genuine muddleheadedness.
Marriage, so understood, is grounded in a reasoned inquiry as to determine its purpose and is supplanted by centuries of tradition. To insist that "it has never existed that way" or to demand "evidence" for the most reasoned understanding of marriage seems to me to signal either deliberate obfuscation or otherwise genuine muddleheadedness.
Quote5) As I've said before, a few times, it's very common to claim that marriage exists to support procreation, but there is no evidence that this is the case, and you should provide some of that evidence for us if you're going to make an argument with such concrete social consequences.
I'm frankly perturbed that many people are still peddling this troubling pseudo-argument against the understanding of marriage. It's really a courtesy that I'm willing to even acknowledge it. Marriage, so understood, is grounded in a reasoned inquiry as to determine its purpose and is supplanted by centuries of tradition. To insist that "it has never existed that way" or to demand "evidence" for the most reasoned understanding of marriage seems to me to signal either deliberate obfuscation or otherwise genuine muddleheadedness.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.
Quote5) As I've said before, a few times, it's very common to claim that marriage exists to support procreation, but there is no evidence that this is the case, and you should provide some of that evidence for us if you're going to make an argument with such concrete social consequences.
I'm frankly perturbed that many people are still peddling this troubling pseudo-argument against the understanding of marriage. It's really a courtesy that I'm willing to even acknowledge it. Marriage, so understood, is grounded in a reasoned inquiry as to determine its purpose and is supplanted by centuries of tradition. To insist that "it has never existed that way" or to demand "evidence" for the most reasoned understanding of marriage seems to me to signal either deliberate obfuscation or otherwise genuine muddleheadedness.
If it's so obvious, and if everybody who could possibly argue otherwise is muddleheaded, then it shouldn't be all too difficult to produce the evidence I and others have asked for, shouldn't it? All I need is a text showing a Western government, state or federal, recognized marriage in the first place to supervise procreation.
Keep in mind that in addition to comprehensive historical evidence, I'll also take evidence from applicable Judeochristian texts, because marriage has its roots as a religious ceremony. If that's the case, any verse that says "you are married because it's your duty to have children, dammit, and not because you want to make a public romantic commitment to each other" or something analogous will do.
If you're unable to provide that for me, I'm going to assume your argument for the legal purposes of marriage is faulty (which I'm fairly certain is the case anyway), and we should more or less stop right here.
1.) A reasoned inquiry into to the purpose of marriage entails that by its very nature and by its ends exists to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation and the biological, emotional and cultural nurturing of offspring born into this most optimal of union (which can also be ascertained by reason) for the propagation of civilization itself.
Am I missing something here?
A thread (this thread) has been started that's:
1) on a topic that is currently the topic of another thread.
2) by a poster that was banned (albeit temp) for his actions on said topic.
The poster had, in the original thread, ad nauseum, stated his premise and argument on the topic.
The majority of the posters disagreed on the premise, and therefore arguement, as it had no historical or factual basis.
The original thread went on with the poster banned......
Yet here we are again, with a thread stating the same premise and arguement?
(1) He is putting a slightly different spin on the topic by arguing it strictly from a secular standpoint, and (2) He is brining new evidence to the table (the topic of this thread is, primarily, the article, which was NOT discussed in the prior thread).
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.
Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
I think the biggest thing missing in these arguments against the notions that omega is presenting is this: Even if everything about how the primary purpose of marriage is or was procreation is true and accurate, many people don't give a crap. But it has been that way for centuries! We don't really care. We don't see change as an inherently bad thing.
Gay couples are going to marry (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/fashion/weddings/barney-frank-wedding-jim-ready.html?pagewanted=all), they are going to live together, they are going to adopt children. From a legal standpoint, these marriages will, in fact, be valid. Those people will be married.
If you're "against" gay marriage, isn't that a little bit like being "against" women or black people voting?
With the civil rights struggle for blacks, as time went by, society became more and more comfortable with blacks being integrated as equals. Schools were integrated, public businesses stopped discriminating, and now we even have a plethora of interracial couples getting married and having children of mixed heritage. Hell, my mother is 1/2 black (Cape Verdian) and half Italian and I was born almost half a century ago.
20 years from now, I think those numbers you see in those polls I linked to will change drastically in favor of allowing gays to marry. It tends to be a generational issue, but you'll still always have some folks who are against it, just like there are still some folks who are.....you know.....not in favor of mixed race marriages and stuff...
All very true. And in terms of the race issues, the changes both in actions and attitudes are correct ones that needed to happen. But as far as comparing race issues with gay marriage issues, again, I (and many others) see it as apples/oranges. I get that you (and many others) DO see them as similar issues. Just want to point out again that that is not the ONLY view.
By the way, I dig the shades, dude :tup Or are those glasses? :lol
All very true. And in terms of the race issues, the changes both in actions and attitudes are correct ones that needed to happen. But as far as comparing race issues with gay marriage issues, again, I (and many others) see it as apples/oranges. I get that you (and many others) DO see them as similar issues. Just want to point out again that that is not the ONLY view.
I wonder if the line dividing people thinking racial issues are analogous or not to the gay marriage issues are similar to the line dividing if you think gay marriage is ok or not.
In other words....
If you think gay marriage is wrong, are you more likely to think that race issues are not analagous?
Hey Bosk, just out of curiosity how do you feel about domestic partnerships with the same rights as heterosexual married couples?
Is it just the term "marriage" that gets you hemmed up?
I'm genuinely curious, it's not a trick question or anything.
Whether or not anyone "believes in" gay marriage, there is going to be gay marriage. How people feel about it, well, that's pretty much irrelevant to the facts on the ground. Gay couples are going to marry (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/fashion/weddings/barney-frank-wedding-jim-ready.html?pagewanted=all), they are going to live together, they are going to adopt children. From a legal standpoint, these marriages will, in fact, be valid. Those people will be married.
Omega is a user here. If you disagree with him either explain why you do or ignore it. Anymore negative comments will result in warnings
I cant see the reason this thread was created other than re-igniting that same debate.
JMO, but I can certainly understand why some in this thread are posting about, or at, the thread starter for the reason I stated.
It seems clear that this thread, JMO of course, needs to be locked, as at the very least is a topic that already exists elsewhere, was a topic that was obviously disruptive, and in some's opinion, is now an attempt to re-ignite a flame fest.
Bosk1 already address why this thread was continuing. He also gave warning to those who want to play moderator.
Bosk1 already address why this thread was continuing. He also gave warning to those who want to play moderator.
Any attempt for denying a group of people to marry out of reason X ignores all the other people who get married for reason Y, Z etc.
Any attempt for denying a group of people to marry out of reason X ignores all the other people who get married for reason Y, Z etc.
I suspect Omega et al would claim all those people are failing as well. There is only one "marriage" and its what was prescribed by the Christian god.
tAny attempt for denying a group of people to marry out of reason X ignores all the other people who get married for reason Y, Z etc.
I suspect Omega et al would claim all those people are failing as well. There is only one "marriage" and its what was prescribed by the Christian god.
Again, though, as theseoafs pointed out, where in the Bible does the Christian God say that the primary purpose of marriage is having children?
Any attempt for denying a group of people to marry out of reason X ignores all the other people who get married for reason Y, Z etc.
I suspect Omega et al would claim all those people are failing as well. There is only one "marriage" and its what was prescribed by the Christian god.
Again, though, as theseoafs pointed out, where in the Bible does the Christian God say that the primary purpose of marriage is having children?
And who cares about the Christian god? My ancestors' marriages were witnessed by the goddess Var.
rumborak
You can care about it all you want; the question is why should everybody else abide by your particular aspect of marriage? I think it's pretty obvious that gay couples are not seeking to get married with the blessing of the Christian god.While true for many, there are lots of gay couples that would consider themselves Christian that do seek blessings from the Christian God.
rumborak
To be fair to Omega here, it's not about the reason people GET married. It's the reason for HAVING STATE LICENSURE of marriage. And the article talks about this, and he makes a clear point that there should only be subsidies if a marriage can actually produce children. But then, to carry this across the board, if marriage through the eyes of the State only is about producing offspring then naturally sterile heterosexual people shouldn't be able to get married either, and people who have no intention of having children though want to get married shouldn't either.
Yeah, which is my point. The current marriage requirements are not consistent with the author's idea of child subsidies either. However, a thing that he should be in favor of is what we have in Sweden, called barnbidrag which is a subsidy for the legal guardians of a children. They receive a fee every month for being the caretaker of a child. Perhaps necessary with such a low birth rate in Sweden if we're going to keep the pension system running.To be fair to Omega here, it's not about the reason people GET married. It's the reason for HAVING STATE LICENSURE of marriage. And the article talks about this, and he makes a clear point that there should only be subsidies if a marriage can actually produce children. But then, to carry this across the board, if marriage through the eyes of the State only is about producing offspring then naturally sterile heterosexual people shouldn't be able to get married either, and people who have no intention of having children though want to get married shouldn't either.
Yeah, but the problem is, "producing offspring" is not a requirement for marriage. Period.
Morally, I am opposed to it. HOWEVER, legally, I think it has to be allowed. Given the current state of the law and that our legal system views sexual preference as a protected class under most laws, I think the same rights have to be given. It's a tricky issue for me, to be honest, and one where it is difficult for me to actually figure out what my position is, so it's even more difficult to provide an answer. Backing it up a step and going to homosexuality in general, coming from a biblical view, I view the practice of homosexuality, but NOT the disposition of homosexuality, to be immoral, and I think the biblical teaching on the subject is crystal clear. So that is the foundation I am operating from. And there are lots of other things that are problematic in our society as well. Living together unwed? Yup. Divorce for any and every reason? Yup. But what, if anything, should the government do about it? Eh...I don't know. I don't know that it's the government's business to get involved in such private issues, and I have a problem with the government getting involved. With marriage, it is a bit different because it is the government creating a right. But at least with "domestic partnerships," even though the government is creating a right that, morally, I do not think should exist, at least the government is not getting involved in twisting the meaning of an existing establishment that many hold sacred. So it can avoid that problem, while still granting the same rights. So that being said, I'm somewhat okay with it--or at least, less concerned. Again, tough to answer, and I probably obscured things more than clarified, but hopefully you can understand what I am saying. If anything, the difficulty I have in answering the question hopefully makes it clear how difficult an idea this is for me to grapple with. And while I perhaps shouldn't have to offer this disclaimer, I still find it necessary to say that, no matter what one's sexual preference, gender, race, or what have you, mistreating ANY other human being is something I find reprehensible and is not something I support for any reason.
In so many ways I tend towards this thinking however I believe that no one has the right to change what is considered a natural tendency that is marriage, something that has existed before government and before religion.
The challenge here, is what happens after its changed? Will those who fought to create this new "right" of marriage now be steadfast to hold to their definition when others come along to stake their claim at what marriage should be? For example what happens when polygomy is brought to the table? Will those who have redefined marriage not allow marriage to be redefined for these people? There are now rites that exist for those who wish to marry animals, which means this sort of practice exists already. Shall the definition of marriage be adjusted for them too? Once the camel's nose is the perverbal tent we have to expect the whole camel will eventually want to force its way in. Is society ready to make room for such adjustments now that it has opened the doors to same-sex marriage?
Right now we are seeing a growing majority of secularist authority.
For example what happens when polygomy is brought to the table? Will those who have redefined marriage not allow marriage to be redefined for these people? There are now rites that exist for those who wish to marry animals, which means this sort of practice exists already. Shall the definition of marriage be adjusted for them too? Once the camel's nose is the perverbal tent we have to expect the whole camel will eventually want to force its way in. Is society ready to make room for such adjustments now that it has opened the doors to same-sex marriage?
Any attempt for denying a group of people to marry out of reason X ignores all the other people who get married for reason Y, Z etc.
I suspect Omega et al would claim all those people are failing as well. There is only one "marriage" and its what was prescribed by the Christian god.
Again, though, as theseoafs pointed out, where in the Bible does the Christian God say that the primary purpose of marriage is having children?
animals are not consenting adults....hold on.
In so many ways I tend towards this thinking however I believe that no one has the right to change what is considered a natural tendency that is marriage, something that has existed before government and before religion.
I'd say this is a very hasty argument to make. Both religion and marriage predate recorded history, and you couldn't say reliably that one came before the other; almost as soon as hominids got to the proverbial scene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion#300th_to_51st_millennium_BCE), they had religious ideas. This isn't to say that marriage definitely came afterward; however, you couldn't possibly support the view that marriage came before government and religion, especially since religion is (understandably) one of the first things we bothered to do.
The challenge here, is what happens after its changed? Will those who fought to create this new "right" of marriage now be steadfast to hold to their definition when others come along to stake their claim at what marriage should be? For example what happens when polygomy is brought to the table? Will those who have redefined marriage not allow marriage to be redefined for these people? There are now rites that exist for those who wish to marry animals, which means this sort of practice exists already. Shall the definition of marriage be adjusted for them too? Once the camel's nose is the perverbal tent we have to expect the whole camel will eventually want to force its way in. Is society ready to make room for such adjustments now that it has opened the doors to same-sex marriage?
Here's the rub: we "secularists", to the extent that that is in fact a group of people who share similar viewpoints, are actually logical human beings. There is, in fact, no secularist agenda to speak of; what we want is for everybody to have equal rights, regardless of any competing religious viewpoints.
What we have found is that marriage offers people certain economic perks; as is well-documented in this thread, you're better off economically if you're married. This is fine, except that there's an entire group of people that can't get married by definition - homosexuals. By the very nature of marriage, this right is systematically denied to homosexuals who want to get married, and we "secularists" think that is gross.
How will we keep from re-redefining marriage in the future? Namely because there's no logical reason to push for anything else. As soon as you can marry someone of your own gender, things are equal; marriage is now defined as any consenting person forming a loving union with any other consenting person, which is perfect because the right of marriage is denied to nobody. Polygamy or animal-human marriage don't come with the package because this definition is fine, and because polygamy and zoophilia have always been illegal in this country anyway. Even "secularists" concede that there's no reason to redefine marriage to include these things, as there's no logical or social support for them.
Also, don't be scared of re-definition. Contrary to your belief, marriage is not some unchanging, eternal fact of life. In fact, I recall a pretty significant change (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) made to marriage not long ago which is, in my opinion, analogous to the situation we're in now. And people didn't start having sex with goats once this decision was made, mind.
Right now we are seeing a growing majority of secularist authority.I'd argue that it's a good thing when people start to care more about equality than what they think their god might have to say on the topic.
I cannot begin to articulate how frustrating it is that this....this....... *deep breath* ......this.....um...... ::) argument ::) .....*more deep breaths* has to come up in every thread on this topic. :facepalm:
HE'S SAYING THAT GIANT SQUIDS SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONSENT. :dangerwillrobinson:
HE'S SAYING THAT HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD BE ABLE TO MARRY. :dangerwillrobinson: (I did change the word but the concept is the same)
HE'S SAYING THAT BLACK AND WHITES SHOULD BE ABLE TO MARRY. :dangerwillrobinson:
HE'S SAYING THAT NOBLES AND PEASANTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO MARRY. :dangerwillrobinson:
In so many ways I tend towards this thinking however I believe that no one has the right to change what is considered a natural tendency that is marriage, something that has existed before government and before religion.
I'd say this is a very hasty argument to make. Both religion and marriage predate recorded history, and you couldn't say reliably that one came before the other; almost as soon as hominids got to the proverbial scene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion#300th_to_51st_millennium_BCE), they had religious ideas. This isn't to say that marriage definitely came afterward; however, you couldn't possibly support the view that marriage came before government and religion, especially since religion is (understandably) one of the first things we bothered to do.
1 Our perception of marriage is to take it as it is presented to us now and find someway to fit that peg into history. We do this by making the statements: marriage is about two consenting adults. Marriage is about love. Marriage is about responsibility. But can we find some semblance of marriage outside of human reason? For example we see certain animals act in ways that have similarities to our practice of marriage: eagles that are monogamous, mother and father species taking care of their young until the young can survive (responsibility). However we as a species define marriage beyond this by using words like consent thus limited the idea of marriage to a more rational like idea. Like Darwin who would argue that humans and animals are shown to possess similar traits in order to show a progress of evolution from the animal state to the human state, would it be a viable argument/hypothesis to say that marriage predates the moment of our reason and has evolved into something that lends itself to a more rational idea? I don't think it's a hasty argument if we want to view marriage as an evolving species, but even with this argument then I would have to concede that marriage is a trait that needs to change as we do. Here we have another question then, when does something cease to be what it original was after so many metamorphesis. For example, take a box. One day the box changes color, but it is still a box. Another day, it develops legs, but it is still a box. Arms, a mouth, a tail form and the body changes to be more of a rectangle. Is it still a box? If we can at least agree that it is no longer a box then we must present ourselves with the challenging question, if marriage is shown to exist before reason in one form and continues to evolve over time, at what point must we concede that it is no longer a marriage? Furthermore who has the right to make that claim? A box is no longer a box once we define it outside the terms of a box. The main argument with marriage is how we are defining it, but is this definition an evolution of marriage or are we trying to simply make it more clear and this new definition has always been there. I would argue the former.QuoteQuoteThe challenge here, is what happens after its changed? Will those who fought to create this new "right" of marriage now be steadfast to hold to their definition when others come along to stake their claim at what marriage should be? For example what happens when polygomy is brought to the table? Will those who have redefined marriage not allow marriage to be redefined for these people? There are now rites that exist for those who wish to marry animals, which means this sort of practice exists already. Shall the definition of marriage be adjusted for them too? Once the camel's nose is the perverbal tent we have to expect the whole camel will eventually want to force its way in. Is society ready to make room for such adjustments now that it has opened the doors to same-sex marriage?
A slippery slope argument, you say? How wonderful!
A doctor comes up to you and says if you keep to your diet you will have a heart attack. 2 Is this a slippery slope argument? A lawyer tells you unless you plea bargain you will be sentenced to death. 3 Is this a slippery slope argument? An economist declares because the economy has improved jobs will increase in the future. 4 Is this a slippery slope argument? It bothers me that people like to throw statements around like a slippery slope argument, straw man, circular reasoning, etc, but fail to understand how an argument which could appear as such, actually has a well formed argument past it. For example, let's go back in history to when the lady spilled coffee on her lap. If I were to say, the outcome of this legal case will now be the camel's nose in the tent opening up kinds of ridiculous lawsuits and a victimless society. Based on your conviction that my statement above is slippery slope you would have to make the same logical leap for this as well. But we know that once a precedent is made, people will move in on that precedent to open it even wider than it was before. To declare that same-sex marriage is an equal right will lead to others asking their idea of marriage is an equal right. 5 Polygamy is practiced today and these people want to see it legal. Just as the woman spilling coffee on her lap lead to her receiving millions of dollars led to frivolous lawsuits, the equal rights fight to same-sex marriage will lead others to fight for similar rights. How can you believe this is a slippery slope when same-sex advocates point to their fight being the same as the civil rights movement? Are we saying that the civil rights movement leading to same-sex marriage is a slippery slope argument? A slippery slope argument is only that unless the chain is completed. Because I am 37, Obama will lose the election. There is no chain of events leading to this conjecture. however because I am 37 there will be 37 candles on my birthday cake. Whether or not 37 candles appear on my birthday cake is irrelevant, the conclusion itself can be drawn from the opening statement.QuoteHere's the rub: we "secularists", to the extent that that is in fact a group of people who share similar viewpoints, are actually logical human beings. There is, in fact, no secularist agenda to speak of; what we want is for everybody to have equal rights, regardless of any competing religious viewpoints.
That is an agenda, regardless if you don't want it to be. Also your argument that secularists share similar viewpoints can be related to a religious group such as Catholics who have similar viewpoints about morals and can also be called logical human beings. I never made the assertion that secularists are not logical so I would appreciate it you didn't force the issue.QuoteWhat we have found is that marriage offers people certain economic perks; as is well-documented in this thread, you're better off economically if you're married. This is fine, except that there's an entire group of people that can't get married by definition - homosexuals. By the very nature of marriage, this right is systematically denied to homosexuals who want to get married, and we "secularists" think that is gross.
It's a fair point too, but as I stated above, when does marriage stop becoming a marriage? 6 Governments support marriage because it supports a community. If the government wants to change their view of marriage based on the governmental idea of it supporting community they have every right to make that change. To assume this definition moves past the government idea though is like assuming American Democracy must therefore change the definition of democracy as a whole. Since that hasn't happened, I see no reason to make the government's idea of marriage the concept of marriage outside government, especially since we can establish that marriage is a part of human nature. If this is the case we can't put the cart before the horse.QuoteHow will we keep from re-redefining marriage in the future? Namely because there's no logical reason to push for anything else. As soon as you can marry someone of your own gender, things are equal; marriage is now defined as any consenting person forming a loving union with any other consenting person, which is perfect because the right of marriage is denied to nobody. Polygamy or animal-human marriage don't come with the package because this definition is fine, and because polygamy and zoophilia have always been illegal in this country anyway. Even "secularists" concede that there's no reason to redefine marriage to include these things, as there's no logical or social support for them.
I'm not quite too sure how you can openly state with confidence that because polygomy is illegal it is therefore wrong and hold onto an idea that same-sex marriage is right when it was illegal in the past. How can you justify your position if polygomy is made legal in certain states (namely Utah is my guess)? You are going to have to reconcile your position on what makes an equal right especially in the light that polygomy can be argued to be logical and a social support in a similar manner that same-sex marriage is. As you stated above marriage is now defined as between two consenting adults. What will you do if that position is yet again challenged? People are willing to go so far as to accept same-sex marriage under a certain umbrella but are unwilling to accept other like ideas under this same umbrella. 7QuoteAlso, don't be scared of re-definition. Contrary to your belief, marriage is not some unchanging, eternal fact of life. In fact, I recall a pretty significant change (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) made to marriage not long ago which is, in my opinion, analogous to the situation we're in now. And people didn't start having sex with goats once this decision was made, mind.
You forget once this decision was made same-sex couples didn't start to marry. But you also fail to recognize that same-sex marriage is an event related to this event in that most advocates such as yourself use the civil rights movement as a means to support it. That in itself provides the necessary motion for society to move in a similar direction. It may not happen for a while, however because polymogy is practiced, because there are actual examples of people marrying animals, I find it amazing that people would assume that such a case will never come up. My prediction is once same-sex marriage is legal in the majority of states, polygamy will be brought to the table. Arguments will be made for it and those who seem to be against it will have to defend their definition of marriage in the same way those against are arguing. Do you truly believe that same-sex marriage is the end all for marriage, that it cannot be changed past that? If so, how do you reconcile this with your statement marriage is not some unchanging, eternal fact of life? Can you not therefore concede that if marriage is to open up to polymogy that you must therefore accept it as an unchanging eternal fact of life? 8QuoteQuoteRight now we are seeing a growing majority of secularist authority.I'd argue that it's a good thing when people start to care more about equality than what they think their god might have to say on the topic.
9 I'm sorry but when people start to think that religion is antithesis to equality that is a bad thing and congruous to bigotry and primarily not true but due to past events I under no circumstances will have that discussion here.
We can balk at its ridiculousness, but past generations did the same with same-sex marriage, interracial marriage and beyond.
Not sure what's wrong with that statement...unless you're implying that humans are animals. But you know what I meant. Or are you telling me to "hold on" because that view might change in the future?I was being a troll. Merely echoing the whole consent argument and how silly it is for someone to even bring it up.