To all of those who think...

[Polycarp_fan]

You've missed my point. I don't care about societal acceptance... I care about seeing my partner if he's dying. Oh, and I'd like to know where in the Bible you found out that sex between two loving individuals is selfish...

1 Peter 4:

3For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you.

1 Corinthians 6:

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

de·bauch·er·y (d

-bô

ch

-r

)
n. pl. de·bauch·er·ies 1. a. Extreme indulgence in sensual pleasures; dissipation.
b. debaucheries Orgies.

2. Archaic Seduction from morality, allegiance, or duty.


lust - a strong sexual desire - a desire for sexual intimacy
2.lust - self-indulgent sexual desire (personified as one of the deadly sins)

or·gy (ôr

j

)
n. pl. or·gies 1. A revel involving unrestrained indulgence, especially sexual activity.
2. Uncontrolled or immoderate indulgence in an activity: an orgy of spending.
3. A secret rite in the cults of ancient Greek or Roman deities, typically involving frenzied singing, dancing, drinking, and sexual activity.

 

[Madcoil]

Maren, you have some interesting thoughts. I tried to answer it with quotes, but it got too jumbled.

All right, I'm going to begin with my reasoning why economic marriage benefits are there to encourage child production.
My idea of society is that it's not there to throw money at you.
With that in mind, then, when society gives economic benefits to married couples, it has to be for a reason.
So these benefits encourage something. What?
Well, if, like you said, they encourage everyone to get married, yeah, I can see that. But why would a society care if you're married or not? Marriage in itself doesn't give any real benefit to society, so why waste money on it?
Stability? Then why not give the same economic benefits for friendships? Frienship is very helpful for as social a creature as a human. Why not give economic benefits for joining a chess-club, or taking up a team-sport?
Or why not give the economical benefits to everyone? A little more economic security should surely allow a person to be less stressed, and more stable.
So I thought, what does society really want from married people. Well, they want stable healthy workers, but you get that from every person, married or not.
But, married couples are traditionally (and here I'm wandering far into my own speculations, sorry ) homebuilders. Now, in nature (unless I'm completely wrong), populations are controlled by their resources, and that, in my view, is where economic security comes into the picture. If there's an abundance of resources, there's economic security, which inspires population to grow, which in turn benefits society by creating a larger workforce.
So these homebuilders, having expressed a certain, usually anyway, sexual interest in eachother, as well as their commitment to work together, are given more economic security, to inspire them to procreate.
That is my reasoning. Damn, this is as muddled as when I tried to use quotes.

And I'm out of time as well. Gonna have to get to work now, maybe I'll get some free time later today.

 

[cantata]

Prefferably 3-4 children per couple.

FAR too many babies!

It might very well be cheaper, though it would encourage sexual activeness (is that even a word?) rather than child-production.

But earlier, you seemed to be saying that encouraging "coupling" encourages babymaking.

I can tell you for sure that my reasons for getting into relationships have nothing to do with babies. Babies are gross.

Yes, I do.

Well, it wouldn't encourage *me*. I hate babies.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I was explaining the fact that I care so little about societal acceptance that collecting social security benefits is WAY more important to me.

I don't think the government should have a say on if same sex couples should be married or not personally. If they allow it for heterosexuals but not homosexuals, it is discrimination - plain and simple. Some do it for religious grounds, but that is still discrimination, because we do not all have the same religion nor - if we are all Christian - the same views on Christianity and this subject. Good luck to you

 

[God-fearing Queer]

1 Peter 4:



1 Corinthians 6:



de·bauch·er·y
n. pl. de·bauch·er·ies 1. a. Extreme indulgence in sensual pleasures; dissipation.
b. debaucheries Orgies.

2. Archaic Seduction from morality, allegiance, or duty.


lust - a strong sexual desire - a desire for sexual intimacy
2.lust - self-indulgent sexual desire (personified as one of the deadly sins)

or·gy
n. pl. or·gies 1. A revel involving unrestrained indulgence, especially sexual activity.
2. Uncontrolled or immoderate indulgence in an activity:
3. A secret rite in the cults of ancient Greek or Roman deities, typically involving frenzied singing, dancing, drinking, and sexual activity.

Nowhere is that post was loving sex between two individual people mentioned = you fail.

 

[Madcoil]

FAR too many babies!

Actually it's an excellent number.

But earlier, you seemed to be saying that encouraging "coupling" encourages babymaking.

I was saying that encouraging coupling, if it led to increased coupling, the chance of babymaking would increase. But it's not the coupling in itself that is encouraged, but the babymaking, on the grounds that society doesn't care if you couple or not.

I can tell you for sure that my reasons for getting into relationships have nothing to do with babies.

If this is a common feeling among people today, then it would seem that economic encouragement for babymaking is *necessary*.

Babies are gross.

No YOU're gross!

Well, it wouldn't encourage *me*. I hate babies.

I hate homosexuals.

 

[cantata]

I hate homosexuals.

I hate tall people.

 

[God-fearing Queer]

stop the hate people!!! lol

 

[Maren]

Maren, you have some interesting thoughts. I tried to answer it with quotes, but it got too jumbled.

All right, I'm going to begin with my reasoning why economic marriage benefits are there to encourage child production.
My idea of society is that it's not there to throw money at you.
With that in mind, then, when society gives economic benefits to married couples, it has to be for a reason.
So these benefits encourage something. What?
Well, if, like you said, they encourage everyone to get married, yeah, I can see that. But why would a society care if you're married or not? Marriage in itself doesn't give any real benefit to society, so why waste money on it?
Stability? Then why not give the same economic benefits for friendships?

You seem to be looking for excuses here. However, friendships aren't the same as marriage. Many single people have a large number of friends, some of those friends are even quite close. Yet, that still doesn't give these people the same stability as people that are married.

Frienship is very helpful for as social a creature as a human. Why not give economic benefits for joining a chess-club, or taking up a team-sport?

Except society also tends to do that. Clubs are allowed to become "non-profit" organizations, that give them state-sponsored benefits such as not paying taxes. Also, non-profit groups can also apply to the government to use public facilities at a reduced cost.

Or why not give the economical benefits to everyone? A little more economic security should surely allow a person to be less stressed, and more stable.

Again, though, the idea here is that marriage provides benefits an individual does not. And it can be argued that most of the benefits given to married couples are not monetarily that great but instead are to promote stability in the marriage.

So I thought, what does society really want from married people. Well, they want stable healthy workers, but you get that from every person, married or not.

Except, again, married people are typically seen as more stable and serious about work. So it isn't necessarily the same if they are married or not.

But, married couples are traditionally (and here I'm wandering far into my own speculations, sorry ) homebuilders.

Depending on how we want to use the term "homebuilder", I'll agree that is one of the advantages of marriage. Single people typically rent and like having the freedom to move if they feel like it. By contrast, married couples are more likely to have ties to the community and to purchase homes. Again, this goes back to stability.

Now, in nature (unless I'm completely wrong), populations are controlled by their resources, and that, in my view, is where economic security comes into the picture. If there's an abundance of resources, there's economic security, which inspires population to grow, which in turn benefits society by creating a larger workforce.
So these homebuilders, having expressed a certain, usually anyway, sexual interest in eachother, as well as their commitment to work together, are given more economic security, to inspire them to procreate.
That is my reasoning. Damn, this is as muddled as when I tried to use quotes.

And I'm out of time as well. Gonna have to get to work now, maybe I'll get some free time later today.

And you are right, that is muddied. Even there you seem to be showing how marriage is not encouraging child-producing since you list several other factors beyond just marriage that influence if the couple has children. Rather, it seems that the government is happy if a married couple does procreate, but that the government does not seek to directly encourage having children or to require it of married couples.

 

[Madcoil]

You seem to be looking for excuses here. However, friendships aren't the same as marriage. Many single people have a large number of friends, some of those friends are even quite close. Yet, that still doesn't give these people the same stability as people that are married.

I'd say it does. You can get the same emotional connections from your friends.

Except society also tends to do that. Clubs are allowed to become "non-profit" organizations, that give them state-sponsored benefits such as not paying taxes. Also, non-profit groups can also apply to the government to use public facilities at a reduced cost.

And these benefits go to the organizations, not the individual members.

Depending on how we want to use the term "homebuilder", I'll agree that is one of the advantages of marriage. Single people typically rent and like having the freedom to move if they feel like it. By contrast, married couples are more likely to have ties to the community and to purchase homes. Again, this goes back to stability.

I disagree with this. Singles and couples are equally likely to maintain ties to the community AND purchase homes. The only part I can agree with is that a single may be able to more easily move than a couple who is not childless.
Furthermore, if married couples are more stable, and stability is the important factor, then surely it would be the singles who, by what you say, are generally less stable, would need more economic security and therefore it would be singles who received such benefits.

Again, though, the idea here is that marriage provides benefits an individual does not. And it can be argued that most of the benefits given to married couples are not monetarily that great but instead are to promote stability in the marriage.

Except, again, married people are typically seen as more stable and serious about work. So it isn't necessarily the same if they are married or not.

And you are right, that is muddied. Even there you seem to be showing how marriage is not encouraging child-producing since you list several other factors beyond just marriage that influence if the couple has children. Rather, it seems that the government is happy if a married couple does procreate, but that the government does not seek to directly encourage having children or to require it of married couples.

I consider this to be your reasoning: (please correct me if I'm wrong)
We take for granted that married couples are more stable than singles.
We take for granted that marriage enables emotional connections and stability that other relationships cannot.
We take for granted that society wants stable inhabitants.
To ensure stability of as many people as possible, marital status is given economic benefits to encourage people to get married because marriage gives these stabilities, as well as the economic benefits themselves giving economic security which causes more stability.

If I agreed with the premises in this, I could agree with the conclusion.

I disagree with the first and second premise, obviously. It is quite simply alien to me that marriage ensures more stability in itself than other social whatchamacallits (emotional connections?).
I can agree with the third premise, but I consider this premise to be secondary, and merely a factor in my suggested premise that society wants increased <amagad my brain has run out of words...> population. (ie. increased stability leads to increased chance of babymaking)

Should we each build a premise-conclusion thingy? I think discussions are supposed to use it at some point.

 

[God-fearing Queer]

I'd say it does. You can get the same emotional connections from your friends.

Yes but two lovers have something that friends don't have... sexual intimacy. If you look at the ideal marriage and take away commitment, something more than mere friendship remains. And if you take away the sex, something more than mere commitment remains. And if you take away friendship, something more than mere sex remains. The ideal marriage is a unique relationship - a seamless blend of friendship, sex and commitment. The union of these three is unique in the sense that no other human relationship can match that.

 

[HaloHope]

Yes but two lovers have something that friends don't have... sexual intimacy. If you look at the ideal marriage and take away commitment, something more than mere friendship remains. And if you take away the sex, something more than mere commitment remains. And if you take away friendship, something more than mere sex remains. The ideal marriage is a unique relationship - a seamless blend of friendship, sex and commitment. The union of these three is unique in the sense that no other human relationship can match that.

Fantastic post.

I never "get" why those opposed to gay relationships seem to think its just like a friendship and the feelings involved are no different than that you would have with a freind of the same gender.

This is of course nonsense, and same-sex couples share exactly the same levels of emotional (and physical) intimacy as hetrosexual ones. A marriage and relationship is not just about sex, there needs to be a special bond between the two people in the first place that goes beyond "just freinds", even if no sex is involved.

 

[Dogbean]

I have heard many times from certain people that homosexuals want same sex marriage legalised so that they can be 'accepted into society', and that because we can't get acceptance for our lifestyle from the majority opinion, we need to get acceptance from the federal government. To all of those who think this, I have a one question:

If your loved one, who you lived with, who you shared all your hopes and dreams with, who you'd known for 20 years, was hit by a car and was rushed to hospital, and you were denied visitation rights or indeed, any knowledge at all as to the welfare of your beloved, and no say in how your loved one's affairs are dealt with, how would you feel?

Contemplate the above question, and then tell me I want to get married so I can, 'gain approval of my lifestyle'. Never mind approval! I want the ~1400 rights that heterosexual couples get! I want the visitation rights, social security benefits, the tax advantages - societal approval is at the bottom of my list!

It's "the emotional argument." Seen this before.

I agree that you should have visitation rights. Nobody should tell you that you can't visit someone who you consider to be family, details of the relationship aside.

 

[Maren]

I'd say it does. You can get the same emotional connections from your friends.

I'm guessing you have not been married? No, you can't get the same emotional connections from your friends. This is partially because in marriage you share everything and the actions you take directly effect your spouse. Whereas with friends, while they might help you celebrate successes and sympathize with your failures, they do not directly benefit or are harmed. As such, you don't have the same emotional connections. Further, studies have shown that married people have fewer mental health problems than those who are not married.

And these benefits go to the organizations, not the individual members.

Doesn't really matter, it is still the government supporting clubs or other groups that create friendships. Also, even though the money goes directly to the club, this is passed on to the members in lower membership fees and lower costs for activities.

I disagree with this. Singles and couples are equally likely to maintain ties to the community AND purchase homes.

Statistics show married couples more frequently purchase homes as compared to singles.

The only part I can agree with is that a single may be able to more easily move than a couple who is not childless.
Furthermore, if married couples are more stable, and stability is the important factor, then surely it would be the singles who, by what you say, are generally less stable, would need more economic security and therefore it would be singles who received such benefits.

Except you originally claimed that benefits were to encourage behaviors; now suddenly you are saying benefits are to help those who need help in becoming more productive. You can't have this both ways. Beyond that, not being as "stable" does not mean they do not feel they have enough financial security.

I consider this to be your reasoning: (please correct me if I'm wrong)
We take for granted that married couples are more stable than singles.
We take for granted that marriage enables emotional connections and stability that other relationships cannot.

False. Rather, it is proven that married couples are more stable and have greater emotional attachments. For example, studies consistently show married people live longer. Some of the reasons surveys list as reasons for this greater longevity: "First, marriage appears to reduce risky and unhealthy behaviors. Second, marriage increases material well-being — income, assets and wealth — to purchase better medical care, better diet, and safer surroundings. Third, marriage provides people with a network of help and support. Fourth, marriage provides adults with a readily available sex partner, something most people consider a great human good."

We take for granted that society wants stable inhabitants.
To ensure stability of as many people as possible, marital status is given economic benefits to encourage people to get married because marriage gives these stabilities, as well as the economic benefits themselves giving economic security which causes more stability.

If I agreed with the premises in this, I could agree with the conclusion.

I disagree with the first and second premise, obviously. It is quite simply alien to me that marriage ensures more stability in itself than other social whatchamacallits (emotional connections?).

And while it may be alien to you, that is what studies have repeatedly claimed.

I can agree with the third premise, but I consider this premise to be secondary, and merely a factor in my suggested premise that society wants increased <amagad my brain has run out of words...> population. (ie. increased stability leads to increased chance of babymaking)

Should we each build a premise-conclusion thingy? I think discussions are supposed to use it at some point.

Again, I'm not building premises based on personal belief but what studies tend to consistently show.

 

[JustHisKid]

I have heard many times from certain people that homosexuals want same sex marriage legalised so that they can be 'accepted into society', and that because we can't get acceptance for our lifestyle from the majority opinion, we need to get acceptance from the federal government. To all of those who think this, I have a one question:

If your loved one, who you lived with, who you shared all your hopes and dreams with, who you'd known for 20 years, was hit by a car and was rushed to hospital, and you were denied visitation rights or indeed, any knowledge at all as to the welfare of your beloved, and no say in how your loved one's affairs are dealt with, how would you feel?

Contemplate the above question, and then tell me I want to get married so I can, 'gain approval of my lifestyle'. Never mind approval! I want the ~1400 rights that heterosexual couples get! I want the visitation rights, social security benefits, the tax advantages - societal approval is at the bottom of my list!

Your scenario is easily solved. Give your partner full power of attorney. As far as tax benefits and SS, have at it. I'm glad societal approval is at the bottom of your list because that will never happen. People in general will never accept that behavior as normal.

.