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

[chrysostom]

Yes it is. Glad to see you on our side finally. :thumb:

Gay marriage FTW.

I doubt if I will ever be on your side

 

[zippy2006]

It is. Homosexual couples are, in those many jurisdictions, denied the right to enter into the same contract of marriage that heterosexuals may, before the state. This is discriminatory practice rooted singularly in religious principle and is no more appropriate than the adoption of Sharia law.

Then let them contract :idunno: You simply don't understand what marriage is. Marriage is more than contract. I'm tired of your assertions. You seem to be trying to justify something you know is wrong rather than engaging in any kind of objective argument.

 

[zippy2006]

Why does it need to be on the same plane to receive government benefits? If government sees benefits in both types of marriage then why wouldn't the government subsidize that as well?

They may, but marriage is different from capable people adopting. Your argument has nothing to do with homosexuals per say, but rather with eligible parties to adopt. I'm guessing such incentives do exist already for people who adopt and help in that way. That's fine; it has nothing to do with marriage.

I don't see how homosexual marriage endangers that society.

See my last answer to Rex.

I'm not seeing the analogy. :idunno:

I assume you mean that the trickle-down theory instills generosity into the people? But I'm not sure what value you see being instilled by only allowing heterosexual marriages.

It instills a healthy mindset about marriage, child-rearing, etc. The healthiest family is, beyond a doubt, the monogamous heterosexual family. That's precisely what marriage ensures. It is also no small fact that this is the only configuration (between the two we speak of) that is even capable of procreating and producing a family itself.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Then let them contract :idunno: You simply don't understand what marriage is. Marriage is more than contract.

Again, it can be but needn't be. Many a heterosexual couple are married in completely civil ceremonies every day, without any religious component and without intent to procreate.

I'm tired of your assertions.

I'm weary of your mischaracterizations.

You seem to be trying to justify something you know is wrong

No. I'm doing exactly what I set out to do, which is arguing and illustrating that discrimination is being tolerated in any number of jurisdictions and it's violative of the underpinning principle of the law.

rather than engaging in any kind of objective argument.

Simply untrue and demonstrably so. :e4e:

 

[rexlunae]

Why must they be treated the same way by the government? Must we treat apples and oranges the same way?

I'm certain we're not going to agree that there is no fundamental difference between the love of heterosexual couple for each other and their homosexual counterparts, so I'll simply note the difference, once again, and suggest that if you want to convince anyone, you'll have to demonstrate the important difference in light of the actual rather than the imagined purposes of marriage as a state-sponsored institution.

Then the homosexuals have it.

If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

1. Heterosexuals are the only ones capable of producing families

And we're back on very well-trod ground here. As has been pointed out to you countless times now, this is not even literally true, and even with your more specific claim that only heterosexual couples can reproduce together, you've failed repeatedly to explain the relevance of this fact.

2. It has been proven beyond a doubt that the ideal setting for a child is one where there is one father and one mother.

It hasn't, and the Catholic Church saying that it has doesn't lend serious strength to the argument. Moreover, this entire bit of reasoning ignores the fact that even if two parents of opposite genders were demonstrated to have some advantage, it would still be true that a homosexual marriage is the most useful union that some people are likely be able to form, and that this probably still provides a better, more stable environment for the children that they do sometimes actually have than if they were raised singly or in less committed, less stable situations.

This is contract, the homosexuals are free to contract; we are all free to contract.

You're either a liar or deliberately ignorant. It's not simply contract, and even if it were, the laws of many states explicitly do not permit these contracts between people of the same gender. I can quote a few examples if you'd like.

I don't follow. Why does the government want to do this?

Because it is a basic need to the people. It is offered currently to heterosexuals, but not to homosexuals.

 

[Granite]

I never once said, in this entire thread, despite gross and unreflective accusations to the contrary, that the only goal of marriage is the explicit support of children.

You're saying less and less here the longer this thread goes on. You're gas and hot air. A stale, stupid, silly old bigot.

Why don't we spend time focusing on our own marriages and stop worrying about the union of other people? Assuming, of course, that you're even married.

 

[Uberpod1]

You're saying less and less here the longer this thread goes on. You're gas and hot air. A stale, stupid, silly old bigot.

In a way, we should thank Zippy for being such brazen, hysterical, and most importantly, incompetent bigot. He is helping the cause more than he will ever understand.

And, New York came around during Zippy's watch! :devil:

 

[Town Heretic]

that is ridiculous

No, but your unsupported declaration in response is. Else, you could distinguish between an Islamic fundamentalist desiring to legislate his particular morality in matters of conscience that interfere with the same free expression of conscience in the next fellow, and your own apparent support of someone seeking to do the same with his Catholic understanding. Instead, you stamp foot, which while noisy enough, is about as meaningful.

 

[zippy2006]

Why must they be treated the same way by the government? Must we treat apples and oranges the same way?

I'm certain we're not going to agree that there is no fundamental difference between the love of heterosexual couple for each other and their homosexual counterparts, so I'll simply note the difference, once again, and suggest that if you want to convince anyone, you'll have to demonstrate the important difference in light of the actual rather than the imagined purposes of marriage as a state-sponsored institution.

But you've again failed to address the topic. The love between two people is not what the state is concerned with.

If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You defined marriage as something that they already have :idunno:

1. Heterosexuals are the only ones capable of producing families

And we're back on very well-trod ground here. As has been pointed out to you countless times now, this is not even literally true, and even with your more specific claim that only heterosexual couples can reproduce together, you've failed repeatedly to explain the relevance of this fact.

It makes perfect sense in the exact context we were just in. You're smart enough to figure it out.

It hasn't, and the Catholic Church saying that it has doesn't lend serious strength to the argument.

See what the Catholic Church did that you haven't and apparently are unwilling to do? They gave an argument. :idea:

Moreover, this entire bit of reasoning ignores the fact that even if two parents of opposite genders were demonstrated to have some advantage, it would still be true that a homosexual marriage is the most useful union that some people are likely be able to form,

...Which is irrelevant to the topic of civil recognition.

and that this probably still provides a better, more stable environment for the children that they do sometimes actually have than if they were raised singly or in less committed, less stable situations.

...situations which also are not recognized as marriage is, for that very reason.

You're either a liar or deliberately ignorant. It's not simply contract, and even if it were, the laws of many states explicitly do not permit these contracts between people of the same gender. I can quote a few examples if you'd like.

Let them contract, I'm not arguing against that.

Because it is a basic need to the people.

Eh? That is dubiously lacking in any substance or argument.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Again, it can be but needn't be. Many a heterosexual couple are married in completely civil ceremonies every day, without any religious component and without intent to procreate.

Civil marriage is more than a contract. I've noted why several times.

I'm weary of your mischaracterizations.


No. I'm doing exactly what I set out to do, which is arguing and illustrating that discrimination is being tolerated in any number of jurisdictions and it's violative of the underpinning principle of the law.


Simply untrue and demonstrably so. :e4e:

The thread shows otherwise. Take the last word then.
:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

You're saying less and less here the longer this thread goes on. You're gas and hot air. A stale, stupid, silly old bigot.

Why don't we spend time focusing on our own marriages and stop worrying about the union of other people? Assuming, of course, that you're even married.

Why not just record your voice and play it over in your home? It would:

1. Save you the time of typing so much
2. Save you the money of a TOL subscription
3. Achieve the same effect, maybe even a pronounced effect, as I assume actually hearing your voice as opposed to just reading your garbled ideas would give you more pleasure
4. The amount of people hearing and caring what you have to say would remain stable

Just an idea :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

Civil marriage is more than a contract. I've noted why several times.

You keep saying it. I keep setting out why and when it isn't the case. Again, it isn't necessarily mated to any religious understanding. Without that understanding it is entirely a matter of contract sealed by the state.

The thread shows otherwise.

Horsefeathers. Lets look at what you say the thread will contradict in relation to my claim:

"No. I'm doing exactly what I set out to do, which is arguing and illustrating that discrimination is being tolerated in any number of jurisdictions and it's violative of the underpinning principle of the law."

This thread will in fact support that I have argued and illustrated discrimination (inequality/inequity) in contract on the part of the state, set out the foundational posit, and argumed from principle in law.

This discrimination is absolutely being tolerated in a majority of jurisdictions, though not in a every, as we see most recently New York.

Take the last word then.

Okay. You're mistaken. Your mistaken at law and advocating a dangerous part that I hope will never come within a whisper of reinventing the singular wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

:e4e:

 

[elohiym]

Against it via natural law. Maybe a poll would be interesting Knight? :e4e:

Used to be for it, used to think I would always be for it, am no longer for it.

Can you briefly give your natural law argument? In your words.

 

[kmoney]

They may, but marriage is different from capable people adopting. Your argument has nothing to do with homosexuals per say, but rather with eligible parties to adopt. I'm guessing such incentives do exist already for people who adopt and help in that way. That's fine; it has nothing to do with marriage.

I'm not sure how you can say this while also saying that marriage benefits are given in large part with children in mind.

Marriage has nothing to do with adoption.
Marriage has a lot to do with procreation.

I see some disconnect between those two statements. :idunno:

 

[kmoney]

Let them contract, I'm not arguing against that.

What sort of contract do you have in mind here? Are you thinking of civil unions?

 

[Granite]

Why not just record your voice and play it over in your home? It would:

1. Save you the time of typing so much
2. Save you the money of a TOL subscription
3. Achieve the same effect, maybe even a pronounced effect, as I assume actually hearing your voice as opposed to just reading your garbled ideas would give you more pleasure
4. The amount of people hearing and caring what you have to say would remain stable

Just an idea :idunno:

:yawn:

When you try to be witty you sound like a bigger stuffed shirt than usual...

Ever going to address the whole cousins bit or was that just a time waster of yours?

Serious question--why in the world is this topic so important to you?

 

[Rusha]

:yawn:

When you try to be witty you sound like a bigger stuffed shirt than usual...

Ever going to address the whole cousins bit or was that just a time waster of yours?

Serious question--why in the world is this topic so important to you?

Yes ... why is it, Zipster? Why on earth do YOU care about the private relationship of other individuals? YOU are not affected by it unless you choose to be.

 

[chrysostom]

No, but your unsupported declaration in response is. Else, you could distinguish between an Islamic fundamentalist desiring to legislate his particular morality in matters of conscience that interfere with the same free expression of conscience in the next fellow, and your own apparent support of someone seeking to do the same with his Catholic understanding. Instead, you stamp foot, which while noisy enough, is about as meaningful.

with Islam you get killed just for being a homosexual
and
the Catholic Church just thinks homosexuality is a sin
but
we still ordain homosexuals

can you see the difference?

most can

 

[Rusha]

with Islam you get killed just for being a homosexual
and
the Catholic Church just thinks homosexuality is a sin
but
we still ordain homosexuals

can you see the difference?

most can

Sure ... the *difference* is that this is America, where bigots are not allowed to act on their bigotry without legal repercussions.

That doesn't make the hatred any less destructive ...

 

[rexlunae]

with Islam you get killed just for being a homosexual
and
the Catholic Church just thinks homosexuality is a sin
but
we still ordain homosexuals

can you see the difference?

most can

Sounds like a difference of degree mostly. And sure, it's progress versus previous Christian approaches to the subject, but if you want the gold star, you have to work a little harder.