toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[rexlunae]

Once again, the chosen "defense" of marriage by the people who think it is so fragile that it needs defending is to characterize it as a primarily reproductive institution. I don't see how this can be taken seriously. It seems like it would inevitably undermine and disestablish the institution if it were a widely-held view. Have these people, Zip in this case, had such bad experiences with it that they can only see it as a means to continue the species?

 

[zippy2006]

Most people are not murderers. Therefore, murderers are the exception rather than the rule. Therefore, the law is not interested in murderers. Right?

I don't think you've properly understood Granite.

I'd say you haven't properly understood me, but then again effort would be required for that.

 

[zippy2006]

So at best you'd say that the homosexual couple provides half the service,

No. Actually I said at best they can do precisely what any heterosexual couple can do, if by another means

That's absurd and blatantly wrong. I'm quite tired of these outlandish assertions.

I don't know what you mean by that or why you find it absurd, so I can't really do much more than :idunno:

Homosexual sex does not produce children :hammer: Homosexual couples do not produce children. :sigh:

No. A married couple may and can.

Right.

And so can a homosexual couple

Wrong.

, only they need assistance, as I noted

Then it's not them producing it is it?

I can walk on water, I only need assistence.

That's like suggsting the mentally challenged don't merit right because they can't exercise it as you or I do. And equality isn't something warranted, it's something we're born to in our society. That's one of the things our Founding Fathers nailed in principle, however they failed it in application.

For a smart guy you're sure missing the basics here. You are the one engaging in fiat here TH, not I. You've declared God/nature wrong, you've claimed that homosexuals can do everything the heterosexuals can do. I don't scoff at that notion religiously, I scoff according to common sense. I thought you would at least acknowledge the soundness of my argument, but you seem to be blindly clutching to your "contract theory" even though it was dismissed pages ago when I noted that a government which positively aids a couple is doing more than binding a contract.


Religious rant:

I also find it disappointing that you know God's law and would willingly vote against it given the chance. It is the separation of faith and reason so tell-tale of Protestantism today. It is the idea that we can safely ignore God's law as a society and be none the worse for it, that we can civilly sanction and encourage immoral acts and not hurt the society in the process. That is a sad thought to me, and reveals that there is more than differences on dancing between our two "churches."

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Lest you think my argument is mere willpower:

It seems like it would inevitably undermine and disestablish the institution if it were a widely-held view.

1. Why? (this is precisely what it was for thousands of years). In fact I'd say that if gays are allowed to "marry" it will indeed disestablish the institution

2. Why do you believe the government grants special aid to married couples? Does their procreative status have something to do with it?

 

[rexlunae]

1. Why? (this is precisely what it was for thousands of years).

A purely procreative institution? No, not really. It certainly plays a part, but the good marriages have something else going for them. And it's interesting that you seem to think I'm referring to the gender of the participants rather than the value of the institution itself.

In fact I'd say that if gays are allowed to "marry" it will indeed disestablish the institution

On what basis, other than speculation?

2. Why do you believe the government grants special aid to married couples?

Most of the benefits of marriage serve to bolster families. Those benefits apply just as well to homosexuals as to anyone else.

Does their procreative status have something to do with it?

No, obviously not. It isn't even a part of the process.

 

[rexlunae]

Religious rant:

If this is what's really motivating you here, you're wasting everyone's time acting as if you're interested in a genuine argument.

 

[zippy2006]

A purely procreative institution? No, not really. It certainly plays a part, but the good marriages have something else going for them. And it's interesting that you seem to think I'm referring to the gender of the participants rather than the value of the institution itself.

We're talking about the civil view of marriage and law though. My claim is that from the government's point of view marriage is an essential part of a healthy society in a number of ways, some of which homosexual couples can fulfill and some of which they can't.

On what basis, other than speculation?

It is a step toward making the institution arbitrary and meaningless, defined via the subject rather than anything else. Gays, polygamysts, and a few crazies who want to marry their dog will inevitably degrade the respectability of the institution imo.

2. Why do you believe the government grants special aid to married couples?

Most of the benefits of marriage serve to bolster families.

Right.

Those benefits apply just as well to homosexuals as to anyone else.

They simply don't. Homosexual couples cannot procreate.

No, obviously not. It isn't even a part of the process.

You're begging the question. Marriage presently only exists between a man and a women, which is incidentally exactly what we would expect if the procreative variable was accounted for.

Re: sterile couples

Do sterile couples pose a problem for my position? No, they are an exception and not the rule. The government does not make laws based on that kind of an exception. Fit men and women can procreate (the youtube video would say they can procreate in principle). Fit homosexuals cannot.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

If this is what's really motivating you here, you're wasting everyone's time acting as if you're interested in a genuine argument.

No, I'm addressing TH's religious views and a contradiction that exists for him. That part of the address was partitioned precisely because it was not part of the secular argument. Next time you see a part of a reply from a Christian to a Christian specifically marked "religious" you should feel free to ignore it or assume that it is not part of a secular argument.

:e4e:

 

[danoman31]

Against it in every way. Sex is to be between one man and one woman, married in the eyes of GOD. Sex between 2 men or 2 woman is UNNATURAL and is abhorrent to our CREATOR. The penalty for such acts is eternal damnation. I didn't write the rules (although I do accept them and agree with them), GOD did.

 

[rexlunae]

We're talking about the civil view of marriage and law though. My claim is that from the government's point of view marriage is an essential part of a healthy society in a number of ways, some of which homosexual couples can fulfill and some of which they can't.

The fundamental aspect, the need to form families, is not by any means an alien concept to homosexuals. We have no right to stop them, as I see it.

It is a step toward making the institution arbitrary and meaningless, defined via the subject rather than anything else.

I disagree. It's a step toward making the institution open to people who otherwise could not experience it in a meaningful way. Meanwhile you've essentially argued that it has no purpose beyond procreation.

Gays, polygamysts, and a few crazies who want to marry their dog will inevitably degrade the respectability of the institution imo.

Nice parade of horrors.

Right.

Therefore, it should be open to just about everyone.

They simply don't. Homosexual couples cannot procreate.

I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with this line of denialism. Clearly, homosexuals can have and raise families, with or without children, and it is often better to do so within the constraints of a legally recognized union.

You're begging the question.

I think you may need to brush up on recognizing fallacies. Nothing that I've argued presumes my conclusion.

Marriage presently only exists between a man and a women,

That's just plain not true. Which makes it like a lot of the other things you've said in this thread, except that it's actually literally written down in laws and court decisions. But if you don't believe that homosexuals can have families, why would you believe that marriage have been opened in many jurisdiction to homosexuals?

which is incidentally exactly what we would expect if the procreative variable was accounted for.

No, we'd expect actual fertility tests. Which we don't have.

Re: sterile couples

Do sterile couples pose a problem for my position? No, they are an exception and not the rule.

I'd say your position doesn't account for the really common exceptions to the rule. Which makes it incomplete. But for some reason you seem to think that the holes in your argument vindicate it.

The government does not make laws based on that kind of an exception.

What "kind" of exception? The laws should be written to apply to people pretty uniformly.

Fit men and women can procreate (the youtube video would say they can procreate in principle). Fit homosexuals cannot.

And yet we don't restrict marriage to only the "fit". Sounds like eugenics when you put it that way.

 

[danoman31]

Can heterosexuals reproduce through sodomy? Your question is irrelevant, however I will say that you are the epitome of ignorance.

You're kidding right? Do you know the meaning of the word irrelevant and how to use it in the right context. C'mon, you can't be that stupid. Please try harder to sound elitist, otherwise I'll just put you on my retard list. Oh, look, you're already on it, NEVERRR MIND.

 

[danoman31]

The same as hold true for any contract should be sufficient. It isn't a matter of being for or against the particulars of the contract, but for an adult's right to do so without undue or inequitable interference on the part of outside parties.

:e4e:

The only rights we have are the one's granted by our CREATOR. Man cannot grant rights that GOD hasn't given us. Is there a constitution in Heaven like we have here?

 

[zippy2006]

We're talking about the civil view of marriage and law though. My claim is that from the government's point of view marriage is an essential part of a healthy society in a number of ways, some of which homosexual couples can fulfill and some of which they can't.

The fundamental aspect, the need to form families, is not by any means an alien concept to homosexuals. We have no right to stop them, as I see it.

You have my word, I will not prevent homosexuals from procreating.

What's your point here? We're talking about civil marriage.

I disagree. It's a step toward making the institution open to people who otherwise could not experience it in a meaningful way. Meanwhile you've essentially argued that it has no purpose beyond procreation.

I haven't argued that, you've simply twisted my words like so many others in the thread, which is why I wasn't replying to you in the first place.

Therefore, it should be open to just about everyone.

Non-sequitur, we are concerned with what "bolstering families" means.

They simply don't. Homosexual couples cannot procreate.

I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with this line of denialism. Clearly, homosexuals can have and raise families, with or without children, and it is often better to do so within the constraints of a legally recognized union.

See, I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with this line of denialism. I've said homosexuals can't procreate, you folks don't seem to understand what that actually means.

I think you may need to brush up on recognizing fallacies. Nothing that I've argued presumes my conclusion.

Asserting "it isn't even part of the process" does just that :idunno:

That's just plain not true. Which makes it like a lot of the other things you've said in this thread, except that it's actually literally written down in laws and court decisions. But if you don't believe that homosexuals can have families, why would you believe that marriage have been opened in many jurisdiction to homosexuals?

You're putting words in my mouth, I've merely said homosexuals can't procreate.

No, we'd expect actual fertility tests. Which we don't have.

No...

Do sterile couples pose a problem for my position? No, they are an exception and not the rule.

I'd say your position doesn't account for the really common exceptions to the rule. Which makes it incomplete. But for some reason you seem to think that the holes in your argument vindicate it.

I thought you came here to make arguments? So far I've seen a lot of emotional attacks, little argument, and less close reading of the points I've actually made.

What "kind" of exception? The laws should be written to apply to people pretty uniformly.



And yet we don't restrict marriage to only the "fit". Sounds like eugenics when you put it that way.

So 90-95% of heterosexual couples are fertile while 0% of homosexual couples are fertile. The government gives benefits to married couples (partially) based on the assumption that the man and woman are capable of reproducing, which is reasonable.

The government primarily gives scholarships to minorities without checking their actual situation. I assume you think the government should screen all candidates before making them eligible.

The government gives welfare to folks making less than x dollars per year. I assume you think the government should screen everyone.

etc. Maybe you're right, maybe in a perfect world the government would screen each couple and micro-manage society (though I think this would be a form of eugenics as you note). Our world isn't perfect, that's not how the government works, 95% and 0% are big numbers.

:e4e:

 

[Ktoyou]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for June 17th, 2011 10:26 AM

toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

Is this a test on knowing the meaning of the word, 'oxymoron'?

 

[Ktoyou]

The only rights we have are the one's granted by our CREATOR. Man cannot grant rights that GOD hasn't given us. Is there a constitution in Heaven like we have here?

You may be confusing what TH means by rights, with what you hold to be the rights all must follow?

 

[danoman31]

From my current perspective, Christian marriage of same-sex couples is nonsensical. I mean, why would same-sex couples want to pretend that the Christian Church approves? :idunno:

If we are talking civil, (secular-legal), marriage then of course I'm for it.

For Christianity though, marriage is something very symbolic and particular. Why Gay & Lesbian people would want anything to do with the Christian church beats me. I see why they would want something to do with Jesus Christ - but that's a very different matter.

Oh darn, where did I put my list. Oh there it is. Let's see, J O H N M O R T I M E R. Got it. Welcome to my list

 

[rexlunae]

No, I'm addressing TH's religious views and a contradiction that exists for him. That part of the address was partitioned precisely because it was not part of the secular argument. Next time you see a part of a reply from a Christian to a Christian specifically marked "religious" you should feel free to ignore it or assume that it is not part of a secular argument.

:e4e:

I'll repeat what I said out-of-band here. TH was making a secular argument, not a religious one. You scolded him on religious terms (after you got done trying to school him on the law), implying that his secular opinion should be determined by his presumed personal religious beliefs rather than serious rational contemplation. You might as well admit that your secular argument is just a cover to justify imposing your religious views with the law. That's not a real or useful form of secularism. It's actually quite disingenuous. I'm not going to just not notice that, and not point it out when you actually discuss it in-thread. It certainly explains why you persist in making the arguments that you have been.

 

[Ktoyou]

Marriage comes with more benefits than money, but presumably all benefits/money given by the government is for societal good. But you didn't just say societal benefit. You said it was for procreation and adding new members into the society. Would you say that all the benefits for married couples are motivated by the belief that the married couple will have children?

Mainly, as for the rest, a civil union would suffice. Some activist gays are backing civil unions, knowing that in most states, marriage now violates state law. The smart move is the protection of legal rights and the idea of marriage' might curtail this, as a back-door approach, some contend.:idunno:

 

[zippy2006]

I'll repeat what I said out-of-band here. TH was making a secular argument, not a religious one. You scolded him on religious terms (after you got done trying to school him on the law), implying that his secular opinion should be determined by his presumed personal religious beliefs rather than serious rational contemplation. You might as well admit that your secular argument is just a cover to justify imposing your religious views with the law. That's not a real or useful form of secularism. It's actually quite disingenuous. I'm not going to just not notice that, and not point it out when you actually discuss it in-thread. It certainly explains why you persist in making the arguments that you have been.

You are opening topics involving deep seated differences in worldviews here. Needless to say I rationally disagree with a number of your premises that led to you writing this post. I argue to convince. If I am speaking to a Christian I may use Christianity to convince him and if I am arguing with an atheist I will use secular arguments to convince him. I believe there are both religious and secular arguments for why homosexual marriage is wrong. I do not think revealed truth and natural truth are two different things.

:e4e:

 

[Ktoyou]

I think the question was clear:

You said: "I am against same sex sex."

I asked: Out of curiosity, what about a sexless same-sex marriage?

That sounds pretty dull.