The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should be ILLEGAL

[Mling]

As for a better home, it's been proven that children do far better in a poor home with loving parents than a rich home adoption where such a child maybe considered a object of possession...

Well yes of course, obviously. Children do best when they are loved. Adoption has nothing to do with that. The key factor is that they are loved.

That's what we're saying, too.

 

[Supernaut]

The raising of that child, one would think, is best served when the male and female aspects of behavior are part of the nurturing process of that child... This is not possible in a homosexual relationship; where either both act as one sex or where one is a mere characture of the other sex at best...

Tell me then Nip, how are you being fed spiritually? Most Christians hold to a very very masculine/male version of God. Do you feel too that we should have a Mother God to? Should we equalize and balance our spirituality? SHouldn't we have a man and woman in our spiritual raising?

Again....the box you put God in is getting smaller and the waves are getting higher.

 

[PassionFruit]

Adoption is a convention, ergo, it's also artificial. However, a child is the product of a natural process of a fertalized egg. The raising of that child, one would think, is best served when the male and female aspects of behavior are part of the nurturing process of that child... This is not possible in a homosexual relationship; where either both act as one sex or where one is a mere characture of the other sex at best...

What are male and female aspects of behavior?

 

[pgp_protector]

I wish people would realize how often homosexual behavior & cross species sex naturally occurs in nature before they say it's not natural.

 

[fated]

The White House has recently released a statement stating that it believes we have marriage discrimination. According to a current lawsuit procreation isn't a part of marriage as far as they are concerned. Even though this is not necessarily what people believe and this has not been voted on, they seek to allow gay marriage by the logic that procreation is not part of marriage... Indeed, even among those who would not mind gay marriage being legal, this would not be considered true... and thus, it is unlikely that gay marriage activists would want an actual vote on their lawyer's 'conclusion.'

 

[Lokke]

I have to give the guy a ton of credit for putting his face on youtube and giving his feelings on the subject. I highly doubt any liberal here has the same amount of courage.
And before you say, sure I would say, I back homosexual unions. That doesn't take courage, especially when all your friends are agreeing with you. You'd get pats on the back.
This guy doesn't seem so stupid as to not realise every liberal on a highly liberal forum would attack his video.
So, make a video that you are for homosexual unions and put it on a forum that's very highly fundamentalist.
Then come back here and talk.

you agree with the guy i n the video then you say you agree t o homosexual uniions. you agree t o somthing then you disagree with it. how can you d o this?

 

[DeathMagus]

Even though this is not necessarily what people believe and this has not been voted on, they seek to allow gay marriage by the logic that procreation is not part of marriage...

Legally and practically, procreation very clearly is not a requisite for marriage. What is there to "believe" or "vote on" about it?

 

[fated]

Legally and practically, procreation very clearly is not a requisite for marriage. What is there to "believe" or "vote on" about it?

Requisite is different that what I said. It is a shifting of language used to make a logical argument, but the logic shift is unnecessary. There is no reason to make marriage all about procreation to defeat logically the gay marriage argument.

 

[DeathMagus]

Requisite is different that what I said. It is a shifting of language used to make a logical argument, but the logic shift is unnecessary. There is no reason to make marriage all about procreation to defeat logically the gay marriage argument.

"Part" is a pretty ambiguous word.

Then again, since marriage is not required for procreation, and procreation is not required for marriage, in what sense can one argue from a legal standpoint that procreation is "part" of marriage? Both are circumstances that are often undertaken together with the same person, but there's nothing that legally binds one practice to the other.

 

[Supernaut]

The White House has recently released a statement stating that it believes we have marriage discrimination. According to a current lawsuit procreation isn't a part of marriage as far as they are concerned. Even though this is not necessarily what people believe and this has not been voted on, they seek to allow gay marriage by the logic that procreation is not part of marriage... Indeed, even among those who would not mind gay marriage being legal, this would not be considered true... and thus, it is unlikely that gay marriage activists would want an actual vote on their lawyer's 'conclusion.'

Interesting. Though marriages are more about relationships than procreation.

 

[fated]

"Part" is a pretty ambiguous word.

Then again, since marriage is not required for procreation, and procreation is not required for marriage, in what sense can one argue from a legal standpoint that procreation is "part" of marriage? Both are circumstances that are often undertaken together with the same person, but there's nothing that legally binds one practice to the other.

Marriage is a 'preferred state' for procreation. 'Open to life' is a preferred state for marriage. This still is pretty much true even though we have some cultural erosion, mostly on the degree of 'openness to life.'

This is why it's necessary to use absolute terms like shifting the discussion to be around elderly or barren couples, but, again, there is no need to do so, in fact, I would say, doing so doesn't make sense either.

The point is that hatred for gays and illogical discrimination is not needed to reject the idea of gay marriage. Some people don't realize this and become ashamed as gay marriage activist present their case.

But telling people that they're personally hated when they are not is actually the thing to be ashamed of.

You know, I'm a person with five children with my wife. I have read gay community arguments detailing how you can use shaming in an attempt to overcome the opponents better angels (which is short for big family marriage reform proponents like me) who have a good strong logical position. It really is too bad. Of course, most gays, as the author points out won't do this. They respect person's with larger families and won't attempt to shame me.

I would say that more people need to be presented with the case for marriage reform in general and be asked to think if, in our culture, indeed, marriage is the preferred place for procreation and if openness to life, to some extent, at least, is the preferred state for marriage. I think most people would accept this logical position, even if they ultimately want to allow gay couples to be involved in this important support structure... which would, accepting this criteria, be more of a lowest common denominator sort of logic, which is not necessary.

 

[fated]

Interesting. Though marriages are more about relationships than procreation.

Changing marriage to be just about love and community support is not really a good reflection of what marriage is in society or how its important and effective in society. If this was the case, gays would not be as interested. People love each other all the time, but it is only when sex is involved do people normally want to get married, and in the case of heterosexuals that normally involves at least some chance of pregnancy.

 

[DeathMagus]

Marriage is a 'preferred state' for procreation. 'Open to life' is a preferred state for marriage. This still is pretty much true even though we have some cultural erosion, mostly on the degree of 'openness to life.'

Statistically yes - this is why the two frequently occur together. But, as I said, there is nothing that causes one to require the other. Therefore, how does this line of thought concern homosexuals who wish to marry?

This is why it's necessary to use absolute terms like shifting the discussion to be around elderly or barren couples, but, again, there is no need to do so, in fact, I would say, doing so doesn't make sense either.

You lost me. Are you saying we should use a double standard when discussing the possibility of children, or are you saying that no double standard exists?

The point is that hatred for gays and illogical discrimination is not needed to reject the idea of gay marriage. Some people don't realize this and become ashamed as gay marriage activist present their case.

You are correct - hatred is not necessary. Mental gymnastics are all that is required to oppose gay marriage and support the current marriage model. Many people, unfortunately, hold just such a position.

 

[fated]

Statistically yes - this is why the two frequently occur together. But, as I said, there is nothing that causes one to require the other. Therefore, how does this line of thought concern homosexuals who wish to marry?

You lost me. Are you saying we should use a double standard when discussing the possibility of children, or are you saying that no double standard exists?

You are correct - hatred is not necessary. Mental gymnastics are all that is required to oppose gay marriage and support the current marriage model. Many people, unfortunately, hold just such a position.

No gymnastics are required. Apparently, all I have to do is say I "you lost me." and I can assert that mental gymnastics are necessary to disagree with me.

But, then, I'm more genuine than that.

I understand, but disagree with lowest common denominator logic, and I understand, but disagree, with gay marriage as charitable support for gays.

 

[CoderHead]

Changing marriage to be just about love and community support is not really a good reflection of what marriage is in society or how its important and effective in society. If this was the case, gays would not be as interested. People love each other all the time, but it is only when sex is involved do people normally want to get married, and in the case of heterosexuals that normally involves at least some chance of pregnancy.

That's a very naive point of view. There are plenty of valid heterosexual marriages world-wide where the couple either (a) cannot have children or (b) does not want children. Your entire argument is based on a false premise. Either that, or if you removed sex from marriage, heterosexual couples would not be as interested.

On the "spiritual" level, marriage is nothing more than a commitment between two people. It's about love.

On the legal level, marriage is nothing more than a contract creating a union between two people. It's about community support.

Nowhere on a marriage license will you find the terms "sex" or "pregnancy." Nowhere in the standard wedding vows will you hear the word "children." So, since the purpose of marriage in our society is to legally bind two people who are in love, what possible argument against same-sex marriage could there be?

 

[fated]

That's a very naive point of view. There are plenty of valid heterosexual marriages world-wide where the couple either (a) cannot have children or (b) does not want children. Your entire argument is based on a false premise. Either that, or if you removed sex from marriage, heterosexual couples would not be as interested.

On the "spiritual" level, marriage is nothing more than a commitment between two people. It's about love.

On the legal level, marriage is nothing more than a contract creating a union between two people. It's about community support.

Nowhere on a marriage license will you find the terms "sex" or "pregnancy." Nowhere in the standard wedding vows will you hear the word "children." So, since the purpose of marriage in our society is to legally bind two people who are in love, what possible argument against same-sex marriage could there be?

That isn't naive. That's the same old argument. You are playing, once again, the lowest common denominator argument for gay marriage. Your logic requires me to accept a lowest common denominator definition for marriage, even though many other definitions would fit marriage, including the one I've proposed.


I have other problems with your post, but we go to the your logical assumption which is easy to reject. That is, again, your lowest common denominator definition of marriage.

Now, you are with the other poster in this discussion... please review post #34.

 

[jayem]

People love each other all the time, but it is only when sex is involved do people normally want to get married, and in the case of heterosexuals that normally involves at least some chance of pregnancy.

I'm not sure what you mean. People constantly have sex with no thoughts of marriage. Always have. Always will. The reasons people marry are many and varied, but one of the most basic I think, is simply the hope to have a committed life partner, companion, and help-mate. And this can apply to both same and opposite sex couples.

Gays and lesbians have an issue with marriage because society gives certain privileges to legally recognized opposite-sex unions. And that the prevailing and ascendant reason why such privileges are denied to same-sex couples is because of an ancient tradition-bound taboo. Which is inconsistent with a society required to treat all persons equally under the law.

 

[Supernaut]

Changing marriage to be just about love and community support is not really a good reflection of what marriage is in society or how its important and effective in society. If this was the case, gays would not be as interested. People love each other all the time, but it is only when sex is involved do people normally want to get married, and in the case of heterosexuals that normally involves at least some chance of pregnancy.

I am sorry I didn't realize that I would have to inject the words "intimate relationship" into my post.

 

[fated]

I'm not sure what you mean. People constantly have sex with no thoughts of marriage. Always have. Always will. The reasons people marry are many and varied, but one of the most basic I think, is simply the hope to have a committed life partner, companion, and help-mate. And this can apply to both same and opposite sex couples.

Gays and lesbians have an issue with marriage because society gives certain privileges to legally recognized opposite-sex unions. And that the prevailing and ascendant reason why such privileges are denied to same-sex couples is because of an ancient tradition-bound taboo. Which is inconsistent with a society required to treat all persons equally under the law.

You are using an argument similar to that used in the California decision, which used a least common denominator definition of marriage, but did not draw equivalence, instead, it used a protected class argument as reason to add people into the marriage system for their protection, because it would be good for them. This is a logic that I reject.

Further, it is not true it is simply a matter of tradition bound taboo, but is clearly about a basic public good.

 

[jayem]

Further, it is not true it is simply a matter of tradition bound taboo, but is clearly about a basic public good.

Gee, that sounds like what I used to hear growing up in the segregated South. That racial separation was necessary for the good of both races, and to maintain public order. And that miscegenation was unquestionably detrimental to society.

You're entitled to your opinion, but like the old segregationists, I think you're on the wrong side of history. The homosexuality taboo is crumbling. I'm convinced that legal discrimination against it will eventually disappear.