Rather than refuting the claims, you start in the middle, claiming the argument from that point forward is a "straw man."
Actually, this seems more true of your post than mine, especially as you don't even bother quoting my entire post but rather quote mine from it for effect. Funny how you restate my claim that you said there is only a single reason for marriage (procreation) but, other than denying that you create a straw man by claiming there is only one reason for society to allow marriage, you never say my claim isn't true, much less state what other reasons society has for allowing marriage.
Then, although you call the argument a straw man, you accept the outcome, trying to defend marriage not as a right, but rather something given as a privilege by the government, by arguing why the government should grant the "right" to marry to same sex couples with this little gem:
Sorry, but no. Rather, I was showing the fallacy in your argument.
Now, before I refute this: Make up your mind. Is marriage a right, or something to be granted by the government? If it's something granted by the government, then stop trying to say it's about equal rights. If it's a right, then stop trying to use statistical arguments to defend it, because a real right doesn't rely on statistics, but on logical reasoning from a natural law foundation.
So basically you don't want to lose your argument on two levels, huh? I choose to refute your argument, showing that it is flawed, but that does not mean I agree with your premises.
For the record, The Supreme Court did determine that marriage is a natural right, as has been stated. To quote from
Loving v Virginia, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Beyond that, however, there are numerous reasons that society as a whole (and not just government) encourage marriage -- and those reasons are not solely procreation (as previously stated).
You first assume the US Government wants people to work harder, and save more, and then you assume there are statistics proving married people work harder and save more.
Then provide the statistics. Instead, you merely are using anecdotal evidence.
Your first assumption is wrong. Do you get taxed more for taking a loan out on a house, or for owning a house? Do you get taxed more for taking a paycheck, or for investing and saving? The tax laws of the US are highly skewed in favor of borrowers, rather than svers, so your first premise is wrong.
Tell me, do you get taxed more if you work or if you stay home and sit around all day? So, by your logic, the government must want everyone to sit at home all day rather than work. In fact, not only are you taxed less but sometimes you can even get the government to pay you for not working. Or maybe tax laws are not "evidence" of what the government wants of its citizens.
If that's not enough, we have a string of politicians and commentators telling us the problem with the US economy is people aren't spending enough, that the savings rate has swung from negative to positive.
Yes, but strangely that isn't what they told us previously, that is prior to the recession/depression. Funny how they tell us something different in a period of economic crisis than they did previously. Tell me, if the government doesn't want us to save, why does the government sell savings bonds and encourage people to buy them? Strange how in prior years (prior to the economic crisis) I heard a string of politicians say that Americans needed to save more.
Your second assumption is wrong. Virtually every startup company looks for unmarried people, because it is well known that younger, single people who are not attached are always willing to work harder, longer hours, than people who are married.
Really, "it's well known"? Plus, you are making the assumption that startup companies look and hire younger, unmarried people solely because they work harder. And you are assuming they employ just any unmarried person of the street for this reason. Yet you ignore the biggest single reason why start-ups may tend to be younger and unmarried, the fact that startups often have cash flow issues and can't always put out a payroll on time, and often fail possibly even defaulting on part of the payroll. And young, unmarried people typically have far fewer finanical responsibilities (no mortgage, no other people depending on their income, etc.).
But we could go the other way and state that most stable companies prefer to hire married individuals because they are more stable, more likely to show up for work everyday, more likely to stay long term, and more productive while at work.
Having children will radically impact your work level in the marketplace. You want further evidence? Go to any job fair. Tell me the proportion of younger folks to older folks there.
Sounds like you are supporting my claim here. The reason that it is mostly young people in job fairs is that they are less stable, they don't stay in a job as long but are constantly job hopping and often quit a job prior to finding a new job. People who have children and are supporting a family aren't typically at job fairs (at least prior to this recession) because they have jobs.
And here you are repeating the same, tired argument over and over and over again. That because not all married couples have children, same sex marriage should be legal.
No, that was your claim, remember? You stated that the reason for allowing marriage was because of procreation -- which was your reason for denying same-sex marriage. Make up your mind, is that the reason you stated for marriage or isn't it?
And will you answer the question? Since your argument is that marriage is because of procreation, should we remove marital status from those couples that do not procreate? And if not, why should we deny gays marriage?
The only argument to be made on this nonsensical premise is that marriage shouldn't exist at all, not that same sex couples should be allowed to marry.
Russ
So which is your argument now, you have me confused. You previously said that marriage was allowed solely because of procreation and gays should be denied marriage because they don't procreate. But now you seem to be arguing that if marriage is only allowed because of procreation, since not all married couples procreate, that marriage shouldn't exist at all? Just what are you trying to argue here?
Or are you just merely stating, since you don't have a good argument (with my debunking the procreation claim) that you'd rather "take your ball and go home" by not allowing anyone to marry rather than allow same-sex marriages?
