"Gathering Storm" Ad in Iowa

[Shane Roach]

It's simple. Men and women reproduce. In order to regulate reproductive issues, the state needs to be able to regulate those who reproduce. The fact that some men and women do not reproduce does not change the fact that the ones who do reproduce would have to be governed by a law concerning men and women exclusively, since those are the people who reproduce.

Reproductive issues and lines of authority and responsibility are separate from simple matters of affection or sexual intimacy. The latter do not need much regulation, nor in fact do most people want them heavily regulated these days. But, even in times such as ours, once there are children in the picture, the state gets dragged into the matter if anything goes bad, and no one has any sympathy for the state if it whines that "marriage" is an outmoded institution. They want a state enforced resolution, and they want it last week. Governmental officials who refuse to meet this demand will eventually lose office.

Marriage is the set of regulations traditionally reserved to deal with issues of men, women, reproduction, and other things specific to that line of legal conflict. Introducing extraneous elements into it undermines any effort whatsoever to maintain marriage as a form of regulation. It becomes merely symbolic at that point. Furthermore, the state will then have to go to the extra expense and trouble of re-inventing the wheel to regulate something that laws already existed to regulate -- reproduction and family lines of responsibility.

"But some sterile hippopotamuses have been married in Beijing!"

Fine... fine. But just wait until they file for divorce.

 

[Belk]

It's simple. Men and women reproduce. In order to regulate reproductive issues, the state needs to be able to regulate those who reproduce.

Say What? What is this state sponsored Eugenics?

 

[Belk]

To Andreusz,
No I am saying same sex couples cant marry as the reason they cant reproduce is they are same sex couples. Fertility would also exlcud them if that was my criteria. [/size][/font]

Wait, I think I get it. People are trying to show you how this is illogical because of reproduction, but reproduction dose not enter in to it does it? You think same sex couples should not be allowed to marry because they are same sex couples. Logic does not enter in to it. You believe that it is against God in some way, ergo it should not be allowed.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Wait, I think I get it. People are trying to show you how this is illogical because of reproduction, but reproduction dose not enter in to it does it? You think same sex couples should not be allowed to marry because they are same sex couples. Logic does not enter in to it. You believe that it is against God in some way, ergo it should not be allowed.

Belk gets a gold star!

 

[Archer93]

It's simple. Men and women reproduce. In order to regulate reproductive issues, the state needs to be able to regulate those who reproduce. The fact that some men and women do not reproduce does not change the fact that the ones who do reproduce would have to be governed by a law concerning men and women exclusively, since those are the people who reproduce.

Reproductive issues and lines of authority and responsibility are separate from simple matters of affection or sexual intimacy. The latter do not need much regulation, nor in fact do most people want them heavily regulated these days. But, even in times such as ours, once there are children in the picture, the state gets dragged into the matter if anything goes bad, and no one has any sympathy for the state if it whines that "marriage" is an outmoded institution. They want a state enforced resolution, and they want it last week. Governmental officials who refuse to meet this demand will eventually lose office.

Marriage is the set of regulations traditionally reserved to deal with issues of men, women, reproduction, and other things specific to that line of legal conflict. Introducing extraneous elements into it undermines any effort whatsoever to maintain marriage as a form of regulation. It becomes merely symbolic at that point. Furthermore, the state will then have to go to the extra expense and trouble of re-inventing the wheel to regulate something that laws already existed to regulate -- reproduction and family lines of responsibility.

"But some sterile hippopotamuses have been married in Beijing!"

Fine... fine. But just wait until they file for divorce.

So what are these regulations, then? How does the State regulate reproduction?

 

[Shane Roach]

Say What? What is this state sponsored Eugenics?

No. People come to the state to resolve issues to do with men and women specific to them having kids together. In order to regulate those issues, the state needs to be allowed to have laws specific to the issue of reproduction. One such long standing expectation was that you get married, thus agreeing to certain standard sets of rights and responsibilities.

But wait... Logic doesn't enter into your opposition to allowing us to distinguish between relationships that do and do not have to do with reproduction. I see where this is going.

 

[Shane Roach]

So what are these regulations, then? How does the State regulate reproduction?

What have we been talking about all this time?

Either marriage, or if marriage has been undermined sufficiently, through laws modeled after marriage requirements no longer so labeled, but enforced nonetheless.

Now, because nothing can really substitute for requiring people to be married before having sex, we sometimes have a problem these days with figuring out who the father is... But marriage certainly used to perform the admirable role of ensuring we had a good idea who was responsible for which kids, and to an extent it still does. And clearly, even old school marriage was not perfect in this regard. Kids will be kids. There was certainly a time though when the expectation was great that one would be responsible enough to make a commitment before jumping into pregnancy, or risking pregnancy.

I mean by this not just the mother, but the father too. Pregnancy just seems to be about the only way of expressing the beginning stage of child bearing, but the father should own as much responsibility even if it is the young lady that is actually pregnant.

All of which seems so self explanatory to me, but apparently not to some.

 

[Belk]

No. People come to the state to resolve issues to do with men and women specific to them having kids together. In order to regulate those issues, the state needs to be allowed to have laws specific to the issue of reproduction. One such long standing expectation was that you get married, thus agreeing to certain standard sets of rights and responsibilities.

Then why not simply make laws that regulate issues having to do with reproduction? Why must they be linked to marriage? Especially given that more and more children are born out of wedlock or raised in non nuclear family settings.

To my mind you are making an elaborate argument to tradition. I agree that marriage started out as a formalized set of rules governing inheritance and right to rule. That changed when marriage changed from being about who got to lord it over which set of peasants and became much more about who I want to be happy with. Personal opinion but I believe this is why there is so much more divorce now days. People buy in to the myth that they will be happy with the person they meet in their early 20's. When they find out that marriage takes quite a bit of work and that they might not have made the best choice they become disillusioned (though perhaps this is the topic for another thread).

You seem to want to return to a idealized form of marriage that no longer exits, if it ever did.

But wait... Logic doesn't enter into your opposition to allowing us to distinguish between relationships that do and do not have to do with reproduction. I see where this is going.

Why do you need to distinguish between relationships that do or do not have to do with reproduction? Why not just make the rule set centered around reproduction no matter if the people are in a specific type of relationship or not? That seems to be setting an artificial limit for no other reason then tradition.

And I am trying to be logical, but likely we all feel that way about our arguments.

 

[Veyrlian]

It's simple. Men and women reproduce. In order to regulate reproductive issues, the state needs to be able to regulate those who reproduce. The fact that some men and women do not reproduce does not change the fact that the ones who do reproduce would have to be governed by a law concerning men and women exclusively, since those are the people who reproduce.

Reproductive issues and lines of authority and responsibility are separate from simple matters of affection or sexual intimacy. The latter do not need much regulation, nor in fact do most people want them heavily regulated these days. But, even in times such as ours, once there are children in the picture, the state gets dragged into the matter if anything goes bad, and no one has any sympathy for the state if it whines that "marriage" is an outmoded institution. They want a state enforced resolution, and they want it last week. Governmental officials who refuse to meet this demand will eventually lose office.

Marriage is the set of regulations traditionally reserved to deal with issues of men, women, reproduction, and other things specific to that line of legal conflict. Introducing extraneous elements into it undermines any effort whatsoever to maintain marriage as a form of regulation. It becomes merely symbolic at that point. Furthermore, the state will then have to go to the extra expense and trouble of re-inventing the wheel to regulate something that laws already existed to regulate -- reproduction and family lines of responsibility.

"But some sterile hippopotamuses have been married in Beijing!"

Fine... fine. But just wait until they file for divorce.

Emphasis added.

Are you saying that the state should have something to say about how and when people reproduce? Or I think you are saying that the state is already doing this by infusing people with this concept of marriage, and if this marriage thing is changed so that everyone can participate, it is going to what? Make reproduction rates plummet? Blow up? Or are people just going to reproduce in any way they want suddenly and it is going to be a chaos of babies? How exactly does this regulation happen since I don't think anyone can be forced to marry or to have babies anymore.
How is any of this relevant to the people who can't reproduce?
What are the extraneous elements and how will they undermine this supposed regulation?
Is this regulation the most important aspect in marriage in your view? What other aspects do you think marriage consists of? How much do they count?

Lot of questions, sorry, but I really don't understand this.

 

[Wyzaard]

It's simple. Men and women reproduce. In order to regulate reproductive issues, the state needs to be able to regulate those who reproduce.

The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

/you

 

[Shane Roach]

Belk and Veyrlian, specifically,

Do not make the mistake of putting all of this defining on me. Heterosexual people who have had sex bring their disputes to the government, not the other way around. They eventually end up codified one way or the other.

The difference is simply a difference in the reality of the situation. You want to change the names of various things so that gays get "marriage"? Fine, then the laws will change (after a bunch of shuffling), and there will eventually be a new set specific to heterosexuals.

Why go through the trouble? Marriage is what it is. People are always going to distinguish between homosexuals and heterosexuals. They two types of couples do not share many of the same issues.

What I see is a lot of people claiming marriage no longer means anything important despite the fact that multiple angles of research suggest (not prove, but suggest) that it is far from having passed away. Kids need both parents. Both parents still need certain protections, certain specific rights and obligations in many cases.

You want to find a handful of issues with that and then toss the whole thing overboard. I do not see the use in this. Whatever issues gays have should be resolved separately from the distinct institution of marriage.

 

[Veyrlian]

Belk and Veyrlian, specifically,

Do not make the mistake of putting all of this defining on me. Heterosexual people who have had sex bring their disputes to the government, not the other way around. They eventually end up codified one way or the other.

The difference is simply a difference in the reality of the situation. You want to change the names of various things so that gays get "marriage"? Fine, then the laws will change (after a bunch of shuffling), and there will eventually be a new set specific to heterosexuals.

Why go through the trouble? Marriage is what it is. People are always going to distinguish between homosexuals and heterosexuals. They two types of couples do not share many of the same issues.

What I see is a lot of people claiming marriage no longer means anything important despite the fact that multiple angles of research suggest (not prove, but suggest) that it is far from having passed away. Kids need both parents. Both parents still need certain protections, certain specific rights and obligations in many cases.

You want to find a handful of issues with that and then toss the whole thing overboard. I do not see the use in this. Whatever issues gays have should be resolved separately from the distinct institution of marriage.

What i think you are saying, is that because many heterosexuals are bad at marriage or sex, you don't want gays to be allowed to dabble in these things either? New laws are made all the time and the old ones are being revised, it's not that much trouble. Some people actually vie for the job and get good money out of it.
The trouble in the gay marriage issue is, and always has been, is that it is discriminating against gays not to give them equal rights. If you think that marriage is already in a bad state, then perhaps you should oppose heterosexuals from marrying also, or try to make divorce illegal. There is no reason to ban gays from it, unless you´re willing to tell them that: "sorry guys, you can't get married, not now not ever, because it is just too much trouble".

 

[Archer93]

What have we been talking about all this time?

Either marriage, or if marriage has been undermined sufficiently, through laws modeled after marriage requirements no longer so labeled, but enforced nonetheless.

Now, because nothing can really substitute for requiring people to be married before having sex, we sometimes have a problem these days with figuring out who the father is... But marriage certainly used to perform the admirable role of ensuring we had a good idea who was responsible for which kids, and to an extent it still does. And clearly, even old school marriage was not perfect in this regard. Kids will be kids. There was certainly a time though when the expectation was great that one would be responsible enough to make a commitment before jumping into pregnancy, or risking pregnancy.

I mean by this not just the mother, but the father too. Pregnancy just seems to be about the only way of expressing the beginning stage of child bearing, but the father should own as much responsibility even if it is the young lady that is actually pregnant.

All of which seems so self explanatory to me, but apparently not to some.

We're talking about marriage, I thought, namely the state recognised and regulated social contract between two people. Not about reproduction, which is not state regulated except in terms of banning the reproductive act between consanguinous couples.

Marriage between same-sex couples will still perform the role of ensuring that 'we'- to the extent that it's anyone's business apart from those directly affected by the matter- know who is responsible for children; in fact that's one of the main arguments advanced by those in favour of same-sex marriage.

Society has generally demanded that people be married before they have sex- or at least they reproduce. But I don't know of any laws being passed that required that- not of any laws that stated that pre-marital sex was illegal. Can you cite any?

Same-sex couples do make a commitment before embarking on childraising. It is very rare for a same-sex couple to find themselves with an unexpected pregnancy. In cases of adoption and artificial insemination or surrogacy, they will have planned it out beforehand.
And same-sex couples with children do want to be considered legally responsible for the children, even if the child isn't genetically related to them.
That's one of the reasons why they want to get married in the first place.

 

[WiredSpirit]

I hadn't gotten down to this E&M forum recently but I just had to pop in here and say that I was banned from another Christian forum for posting the Stephen Colbert version of this ad...

Maybe someone else would conspire with me to bring the discussion there.

 

[David Brider]

I hadn't gotten down to this E&M forum recently but I just had to pop in here and say that I was banned from another Christian forum for posting the Stephen Colbert version of this ad...

Maybe someone else would conspire with me to bring the discussion there.

Which is a pity, 'cos the Colbert version is really funny.

Although I still think they missed a trick by not having It's Raining Men on the soundtrack...

David.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Blek,

Wait, I think I get it. People are trying to show you how this is illogical because of reproduction, but reproduction dose not enter in to it does it? You think same sex couples should not be allowed to marry because they are same sex couples. Logic does not enter in to it. You believe that it is against God in some way, ergo it should not be allowed.

I understand your worldview on this but I woulod say its illogical. The fact is the human species has two sexes which reproduce sexually. One of the way this understading is the use of the word gender instead of sex. The birth certificates still identify the sex of the baby, not the gender. That it requires both sexes, male and female to reproduce in sexual intercourse determines what sex is. Sex therefore isnt just any arousal or gratification stimulated, but intercourse between the sexes. Your worldview would probably include oral and anal sex as sex, but thats just the use of one sexual organ with another organ (unless of course you would say the mouth and anus are sexual organs)

Under our worldview which is not just the Chistian one but also a much more clealry logical one, a marriage would have to be between each of the two sexes. There is no piont in having two sexes if a union can be formed between only one sex, and the point is the only true union can be formed with male and female because that union is the only one that can reproduce.

 

[Shane Roach]

What i think you are saying, is that because many heterosexuals are bad at marriage or sex, you don't want gays to be allowed to dabble in these things either?

It might be informative if you gave me some idea how you got this out of what I said.

 

[Shane Roach]

We're talking about marriage, I thought, namely the state recognised and regulated social contract between two people. Not about reproduction, which is not state regulated except in terms of banning the reproductive act between consanguinous couples.

Marriage between same-sex couples will still perform the role of ensuring that 'we'- to the extent that it's anyone's business apart from those directly affected by the matter- know who is responsible for children; in fact that's one of the main arguments advanced by those in favour of same-sex marriage.

Society has generally demanded that people be married before they have sex- or at least they reproduce. But I don't know of any laws being passed that required that- not of any laws that stated that pre-marital sex was illegal. Can you cite any?

Same-sex couples do make a commitment before embarking on childraising. It is very rare for a same-sex couple to find themselves with an unexpected pregnancy. In cases of adoption and artificial insemination or surrogacy, they will have planned it out beforehand.
And same-sex couples with children do want to be considered legally responsible for the children, even if the child isn't genetically related to them.
That's one of the reasons why they want to get married in the first place.

This seems incredibly misleading to me. Are you stating that gays are promising to stop having pre-marital or extramarital intercourse if gay marriages are instituted? I think not.

You are mischaracterizing both what I said and what the gay marriage agenda is all about. One of the most telling bits of your post is the fall back to the position that society has no interest in regulating child care issues through limiting sexual behaviors. You say marriage is about limiting sex but refuse to mention why that is. It is a direct result of wanting to regulate child care issues. Sexual behaviors have been some of the most regulated in our history precisely because of this. It is only since the advent of socialist thought that anyone supported blind and wide ranging deregulation of sex. This has been the very socialist policy that I repeatedly state has already harmed the institution of marriage. I see no reason to follow this course to its logical conclusion of the utter destruction of a civilization by allowing yet another deregulation to occur when we have not even addressed the problems of previous deregulation in the arena of marriage and family law.

 

[IzzyPop]

This seems incredibly misleading to me. Are you stating that gays are promising to stop having pre-marital or extramarital intercourse if gay marriages are instituted? I think not.

You are mischaracterizing both what I said and what the gay marriage agenda is all about. One of the most telling bits of your post is the fall back to the position that society has no interest in regulating child care issues through limiting sexual behaviors. You say marriage is about limiting sex but refuse to mention why that is. It is a direct result of wanting to regulate child care issues. Sexual behaviors have been some of the most regulated in our history precisely because of this. It is only since the advent of socialist thought that anyone supported blind and wide ranging deregulation of sex. This has been the very socialist policy that I repeatedly state has already harmed the institution of marriage. I see no reason to follow this course to its logical conclusion of the utter destruction of a civilization by allowing yet another deregulation to occur when we have not even addressed the problems of previous deregulation in the arena of marriage and family law.

Really? Marriage is not about sex, kids, or regulating them. It is about property.

And you may need to get your right wing talking points back in order. Socialists regulate, real Americans deregulate. In fact, since the right is all for small government and freedom and such, wouldn't they then be for expanding freedom to include same-sex marriage since that would be less governmental interference and greater personal freedom?

 

[Shane Roach]

Really? Marriage is not about sex, kids, or regulating them. It is about property.

And you may need to get your right wing talking points back in order. Socialists regulate, real Americans deregulate. In fact, since the right is all for small government and freedom and such, wouldn't they then be for expanding freedom to include same-sex marriage since that would be less governmental interference and greater personal freedom?

That's libertarian, which I am not. Libertarians are constantly trying to cast themselves as the root of conservativism, but since their separation from the Republican party they appear to get pretty much nowhere, because people know that the real socialism is in government ownership, not in responsible regulation.

If you were correct about marriage being solely about property, I would expect to see many, many more marriages between business partners of the same gender. You seem to be missing a vital aspect of the concept of marriage.