Bevin: Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead To Parent-Child Marriage

[frigidweirdo]

Gay 'behaviour' is about having sex. Don't heterosexuals have sex?

Hamsters have sex, yet we don't create federal laws requiring bakers and dress makers to celebrate the fact.

Are they celebrating having sex? Or are they "celebrating" because they are a group being pounded on by ignorant people?

Like when black people were being pounded on, they went out and did things.


If you let gay people be equal, they probably wouldn't be so visual to you. Your actions actually put them in your face.

 

[HUGGY]

Bevin: Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead To Parent-Child Marriage

Someone has to make those sexually abused children honest.

This thing should go over in Apalatia without a hitch.

The more the Hillbillies inbreed the faster they will die out.

Sounds good to me.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's what you think benefits society.

I don't "think," I have fact on my side, The disintegration of the American family tracks to the rise in gangs as proxy to those families. Societies degrade from a family structure to a tribal structure.

Straight couples are the ones getting divorced. They're breaking up the traditional family structure, probably due to freedom and in a lot of cases due to the woman not putting up with the dominating nonsense that the man dishes out, which can be things like beatings or cheating or whatever.
So divorce happens in straight couples. How would allowing gay people to marry make the family structure any less? It wouldn't.

You think that children not having a father and mother is so potentially detrimental to them that you are willing to deny that right to gay couples.

No right is being denied. No homosexual has ever been denied the right to marry. You have simply demanded that marriage be redefined to suit the desires of homosexuals. I point out that such a redefinition is contrary to the anthropological impetus for marriage in the first place.

So we should basically force straight people to marry someone they don't want? Bring back parents deciding who their children should marry with arranged marriages, or even worse, the state gets to decide and the state gets to say no?

You're picking and choosing how you want to frame this. By saying "no gay person has been prevented from marrying", well actually they are.
If they marry for benefits only, which is the basis of equal protection of the laws (ie, gay people can't get the benefits because they can't marry), then they are committing FRAUD.

But the point is, that straight people can marry the person who they choose, as long as they are consenting adults. Gay people can't.
But of course you're limiting your sentence for a reason, and you know why you're limiting your sentence too.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The logic would be that when a couple go to get married there is no requirement for them to have children.

A common means of illustrating logic is through syllogism.

Premise: Society is served by by creating a stable environment for children by inducing males to remain during the raising of those children.

Your argument: when a couple go to get married there is no requirement for them to have children

Do you see how the logic utterly fails?

The other bit of logic is, if you are not married and a man and woman have sex they can produce a child the same as if they are married.

Exactly, therefore it is in societies best interest to devise the rules so that the couple DOES marry. Homosexual unions work against this outcome, thus are counter-productive.

Other logic says for every 2 marriages there is more than one divorce, which suggest that marriage isn't so great in many situations for the potential children that are being produced. It also suggests the states would have a hard time justifying marriage as the greatest thing for children.

That isn't "logic" - just an argument. Logic follows premise, support, conclusion.

And a counter argument that the weakening of the institution of marriage and the degradation in the status of marriage are one of the causes of high divorce rates is easy enough to support.

GOOD marriage is GOOD for children. BAD marriage is BAD for children.

Even that is debatable.

http://www.acfc.org/acfc/assets/documents/research_pdf's/Fabricius_Ann_Cools_Paper.pdf

 

[KevinWestern]

You're admitting there's no harm to anyone if two men or two women marry? Then what argument do you have left?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The harm is to the foundations of society. I've repeatedly explained that the institution of marriage is for the good of society, to ensure that children are cared for and socialized. It has nothing to do with your desire for sexual gratification.

I've ALSO stated repeatedly that I have no issue with anyone's sexual desires. Do whatever the hell you want.

BUT from a sociatal standpoint - don't change the fucking rules, they're there for a reason. In simple terms, come in and be welcome, but don't shit on the carpet.

Would you be OK with the Government issuing only civil unions to two adult people who want to merge their lives together (so they can be legally "connected", can access medical records, make decisions for one another, etc) and leave the defining of "marriage" a private matter?

Won't it make things easier for the state to just pull out of the debate and neutralize its stance? I think most can agree we've wasted too many precious resources on this issue from a public standpoint, regardless of what side of the issue you stand on.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Would you be OK with the Government issuing only civil unions to two adult people who want to merge their lives together (so they can be legally "connected", can access medical records, make decisions for one another, etc) and leave the defining of "marriage" a private matter?

What you describe is a contract, which is and has been binding from the start.

Won't it make things easier for the state to just pull out of the debate and neutralize its stance? I think most can agree we've wasted too many precious resources on this issue from a public standpoint, regardless of what side of the issue you stand on.

Yes.

From a purely libertarian standpoint, there is no reason that the state should be involved in marraige. But then, this would mean the freedom of businesses and people to NOT honor homosexual unions.

 

[KevinWestern]

From a purely libertarian standpoint, there is no reason that the state should be involved in marraige. But then, this would mean the freedom of businesses and people to NOT honor homosexual unions.

Well, perhaps maybe not exactly.

If the "civil union" becomes the primary legal basis for any and all things representing what a "marriage" (or whatever you may call it) is in the eyes of the law, then businesses would have to eventually treat all civil unions equally.

If you told one employee that his civil union partner could receive healthcare and another employee that his civil union partner couldn't receive healthcare - wouldn't that be clear cut discrimination?

Are businesses today able to tell one married couple that they can receive healthcare and another married couple that they cannot?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The logic would be that when a couple go to get married there is no requirement for them to have children.

A common means of illustrating logic is through syllogism.

Premise: Society is served by by creating a stable environment for children by inducing males to remain during the raising of those children.

Your argument: when a couple go to get married there is no requirement for them to have children

Do you see how the logic utterly fails?

The other bit of logic is, if you are not married and a man and woman have sex they can produce a child the same as if they are married.

Exactly, therefore it is in societies best interest to devise the rules so that the couple DOES marry. Homosexual unions work against this outcome, thus are counter-productive.

Other logic says for every 2 marriages there is more than one divorce, which suggest that marriage isn't so great in many situations for the potential children that are being produced. It also suggests the states would have a hard time justifying marriage as the greatest thing for children.

That isn't "logic" - just an argument. Logic follows premise, support, conclusion.

And a counter argument that the weakening of the institution of marriage and the degradation in the status of marriage are one of the causes of high divorce rates is easy enough to support.

GOOD marriage is GOOD for children. BAD marriage is BAD for children.

Even that is debatable.

http://www.acfc.org/acfc/assets/documents/research_pdf's/Fabricius_Ann_Cools_Paper.pdf

Here's the problem with your premise. For every 2 marriages there's one divorce. Is marriage a stable environment for children? The answer is no.

This isn't me saying that marriage can't be a stable environment, though I knew a guy whose parents never married and he had that stable environment. The reality is stable environments are made by two people being together.

The point about my argument, which you are attempting to claim is in response to your premise, is that firstly you don't ask couples if they want to have kids. Is there any interest for the state to allow two people to marry who aren't going to have kids?
This is the argument that appears to be coming through from your side for not having gay marriages. Then if you aren't making a stable environment for kids, then you shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Or did I miss something?

Either, you allow all consenting adults to marry the person of their choice, and in doing so hope that you create a stable environment for the kids that may be produced.
Or, you allow only those people who are going to have kids from marrying so that you create a stable environment for kids.

However, even the or statement there doesn't take into account abuse, and other such things that may lead to divorce and an unstable marriage environment.

Do I see the utter logic failure? I see you trying to push the argument in a direction and then make a claim that doesn't work.


How does a homosexual marriage stop straight people who want kids from producing a stable environment for kids exactly?


Your argument is that marriage DOES provide a stable environment. 2 marriages 1 divorce. What percentage of marriages are stable? 50%? And there the ones where people do get divorced, what about the unhappy marriages that never end?

You think bad marriage is good for children?

Clearly your argument seems to be about preventing divorce, rather than allowing gay people to marry which has nothing to do with a stable environment for children.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Bevin: Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead To Parent-Child Marriage

What we really need to put a stop to is people marrying the kitchen cabinets and tennis rackets.

Hey, don't laugh. It could happen ad kitchen cabinets and tennis rackets are not good god-fearing christians and shit like that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Bevin: Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead To Parent-Child Marriage

What we really need to put a stop to is people marrying the kitchen cabinets and tennis rackets.

Hey, don't laugh. It could happen ad kitchen cabinets and tennis rackets are not good god-fearing christians and shit like that.

It's clearly the slippery slope, if we allow gay marriage then next people will be marrying furniture, and then what? Soon they'll be marrying planets.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

No right is being denied. No homosexual has ever been denied the right to marry. You have simply demanded that marriage be redefined to suit the desires of homosexuals. I point out that such a redefinition is contrary to the anthropological impetus for marriage in the first place.
.

The 'anthropological' history of 'marriage' predates government creating civil marriages for tens of thousands of years.

De facto same sex marriage has always existed, alongside opposite sex marriage. Just because the government imposed a limited definition of marriage on the civil institution does change that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The reason the bigots make bad arguments involving children when trying to argue against same sex marriage is that they don't have any good arguments.

 

[Andylusion]

The reason the bigots make bad arguments involving children when trying to argue against same sex marriage is that they don't have any good arguments.

The reason the bigots make bad arguments when trying to argue for same sex marriage is that they don't have any good arguments.