Homosexuals Say Married Couples Required to Have Children

[Mirdath]

I guess I missed the part where you dropped this. Just to be explicit - you’re saying you want no more filing married-filing-jointly category, right?

I could have sworn it was this thread, but looking back over this page at least I can’t find it. I’m posting in a few gay threads at once, apparently I got mixed up.

Anyway, yeah. Take marriage out of the tax code. And then what’s left? Absolutely nothing – which in fact goes back to my original argument that the government should just keep its nose out as much as possible, after ensuring that all are treated equally. Know what? That actually sounds pretty good to me, let’s do it!

I note in passing that this is not elevating gay unions at all, but rather drawing traditional married couples down. You’re divesting an entire class of people of current benefits. You should be aware that this is what you’re advocating.

It is. I see no reason why one class of people should benefit while another can’t. Either give those benefits to the latter, or take them away from all. Since, apparently, that first class of people takes great joy in keeping the second from getting those benefits, the only solution would seem to be their wholesale removal.

True, but then you made your little aliens case and included chimps and dolphins. I can only guess that you would favor “marriage” in these instances…and guess what…that’s bestiality.

No, what I was saying is is it bestiality if the animal is not merely ‘animal’? If the animal is sentient, self-aware, civilized, and otherwise capable of giving consent, is it not human in nature if not in species?

#7 does not happen now. Plural marriages of all kinds are illegal.

Oh, you meant ‘social’ as in ‘group marriage’. I read it as ‘marriage for social reasons’…

Murder also happens now, and is also illegal. Would you legalize it simply because it happens? Of course not. Poor argument.

Murder is inarguably unethical. Two women marrying each other isn’t.

You’re not even thinking this through, and that’s the problem. Policy questions don’t require lawyers.

They don’t require them, but boy do the lawyers start salivating if you misword one line on the exportation of kumquats…

And I don’t see how I could be reasonably expected to think everything through in exhaustive detail and account for every possible situation. I have the general idea, I even have some of the details, but I’m just one person, not an entire church or government unto myself, and I do not have the centuries to deliberate and alter that they do.

AHHHHHH…you’re getting somewhere!! You’re still missing the mark, but this is much closer!! I’m sure you’re smart enough to figure this out, so I would appreciate if you spent a couple of minutes actually thinking critically about this.

I still cannot see any possible thing beyond the model of the nuclear family with a stay-at-home mother (I meant that the last time I answered, but thought it would be considered implicit).

fix:

That is a contradiction. Either your so-called moral code is absolute and binding objectively, or you actually do not believe those so called absolutes matter. It is akin to saying I think chattel slavery is bad, but if you want to have a slave that is fine. Your absolutes exist yet do not matter and bind only you?

I have a pretty minimalist moral code. It covers theft, murder, rape, deceit, and that’s about it (that I can bring to mind) – but I hold that all four of those are objectively and categorically (in the Kantian sense) wrong. But this is a representative government, and I am well aware that I am only one person among millions. If the rest of the people push through a law I do not support, I may, as here, argue against it, but I realize the law is not there to represent me alone.

 

[fix]

I have a pretty minimalist moral code. It covers theft, murder, rape, deceit, and that’s about it (that I can bring to mind) – but I hold that all four of those are objectively and categorically (in the Kantian sense) wrong. But this is a representative government, and I am well aware that I am only one person among millions. If the rest of the people push through a law I do not support, I may, as here, argue against it, but I realize the law is not there to represent me alone.

Well, then you do agree that the law should not contradict what is absolutely wrong?

The argument then should become why yours, and others, understanding of what is absolute needs to be corrected.

A democracy does represent many folks with many differing beliefs, that fact does not mean we concede every law is just and every single belief is true. Majority does not determine truth.

 

[RyanL]

Anyway, yeah. Take marriage out of the tax code.

It is a foolish man who destroys a thing whose purpose he does not know.

It is. I see no reason why one class of people should benefit while another can’t. …

Either give those benefits to the latter, or take them away from all. Since, apparently, that first class of people takes great joy in keeping the second from getting those benefits, the only solution would seem to be their wholesale removal.

Women get the right to abort their babies in this country - why can’t men get that right, too? Let’s strip everyone of that ability since it’s being denied to men.

Physically disabled people get special privileges by law which I do not (tax breaks, special entrances, etc.) - let’s take that away, too.

People who commit crimes are given special privileges by the law - namely court appointed and provided counsel - and I do not. Let’s take that away.

What is the logical result of your argument? Carry it through to its end.

No, what I was saying is is it bestiality if the animal is not merely ‘animal’?

Only humans are human. Take a biology class.

If the animal is sentient, self-aware, civilized, and otherwise capable of giving consent, is it not human in nature if not in species?

No, it’s not. This is basic ontology. If you inject an apple with orange flavoring, it doesn’t magically become an orange.

Murder is inarguably unethical. Two women marrying each other isn’t.

Want to bet that the ethics of murder is inarguable?

And I don’t see how I could be reasonably expected to think everything through in exhaustive detail and account for every possible situation.

I’m not asking for that, only a logical follow-up on your idea. Where will it take us? It’s hard to know where you’re going if you don’t know where you started.

I have the general idea, I even have some of the details, but I’m just one person, not an entire church or government unto myself, and I do not have the centuries to deliberate and alter that they do.

Every man has only the space of a lifetime. Get over it.

I still cannot see any possible thing beyond the model of the nuclear family with a stay-at-home mother (I meant that the last time I answered, but thought it would be considered implicit).

Good enough to start. The nuclear family is the model the government is trying to encourage. Until about 40 years ago, divorce was very difficult to procure - thus, we can deduce that divorce was discouraged by the expense/difficulty of the legal process.

Why? Is it simply nostalgia? Religious culture, nothing more? Is it better to have litters of bastard children running the street in packs, or is another model objectively superior for the development of productive members of society? What kinds of acts lead to children? Is there an interest in ensuring that these acts are done in a responsible way? Is there an interest in ensuring that non-procreative acts are done in a responsible way? What is the state’s interest?

Keep thinking through this - you’re almost there!

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Mirdath]

Women get the right to abort their babies in this country - why can’t men get that right, too? Let’s strip everyone of that ability since it’s being denied to men.

If you want to get an abortion, go ahead! They’ll have to stick the vaccuum up a different hole, but hey, the law doesn’t stop you at all!

Physically disabled people get special privileges by law which I do not (tax breaks, special entrances, etc.) - let’s take that away, too.

People who commit crimes are given special privileges by the law - namely court appointed and provided counsel - and I do not. Let’s take that away.

Lose a leg or get arrested and you’ll get those. But if you want to marry another man, you can’t.

Only humans are human. Take a biology class.

I did say by nature, not by species, in those exact terms. To be human is to be sentient, self-aware, and technological. Back to the space aliens, if they do exist and appear here, the question is more likely ‘will they consider us more than animals?’

I’m not asking for that, only a logical follow-up on your idea. Where will it take us? It’s hard to know where you’re going if you don’t know where you started.

We can’t ‘know’ where we’re going with new or old ideas until we get there. We can make pretty good guesses, and those countries that do allow for a more even-handed definition of marriage seem to be doing pretty well by it.

Every man has only the space of a lifetime. Get over it.

I have an excellent grasp of my own mortality, thanks. If you’d care to realize that I am mortal and limited, that’d be great.

What is the state’s interest?

If the nuclear model is what the state is trying to encourage, they’ve already failed. It is not working and it’s not likely to start all of a sudden.

 

[mvinca]

If the nuclear model is what the state is trying to encourage, they’ve already failed. It is not working and it’s not likely to start all of a sudden.

If there is any failure, it is due to those things that conflict with the nuclear model: no-fault divorce, contraception and abortion.

 

[RyanL]

If you want to get an abortion, go ahead! They’ll have to stick the vaccuum up a different hole, but hey, the law doesn’t stop you at all!

Homosexuals can get married - but only to people of the opposite sex. Same argument.

And it’s not lost on me that you’re back to stirring the pot.

Lose a leg or get arrested and you’ll get those. But if you want to marry another man, you can’t.

Current law is exceedingly permissive - if you get a sex change you can marry any man you want to (even though you’ll still be an XY chromosome individual…i.e., male).

I did say by nature, not by species, in those exact terms.

I know what you said, but I’m afraid *you *don’t know what you said. These words have very precise and historical meanings. Go read Aristotle.

To be human is to be sentient, self-aware, and technological.

So the Amish aren’t humans because they’re technological?

Back to the space aliens, if they do exist and appear here, the question is more likely ‘will they consider us more than animals?’

It is likely they will consider humans to be humans, dolphins to be dolphins, chimps to be chimps, etc. It is highly unlikely that they will start calling themselves human.

If the nuclear model is what the state is trying to encourage, they’ve already failed. It is not working and it’s not likely to start all of a sudden.

So let’s not even try? Defeatist.

Please actually try to address my previous post.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Mirdath]

Homosexuals can get married - but only to people of the opposite sex. Same argument.

No, it isn’t. Those services are available to people who need them in their current state. Marriage is not available to homosexuals as they are – and I might add, if they do try to ‘turn straight’ as you suggest, it often leads to depression, mental illness, and suicide.

Current law is exceedingly permissive - if you get a sex change you can marry any man you want to (even though you’ll still be an XY chromosome individual…i.e., male).

This thread’s already a sprawling mess and you want to bring in transsexuality?

I know what you said, but I’m afraid *you *don’t know what you said. These words have very precise and historical meanings. Go read Aristotle.

I know what they mean and I meant it. Are you too afraid to answer?

So the Amish aren’t humans because they’re technological?

They’re plenty technological. I wasn’t talking about cell phones, I was talking about wheels and fire.

It is likely they will consider humans to be humans, dolphins to be dolphins, chimps to be chimps, etc. It is highly unlikely that they will start calling themselves human.

Mentally human-equivalent, then. Will we pass their idea of a Turing test? You’re either being obtuse or facetious.

So let’s not even try? Defeatist.

Where does it say ‘thou shalt have only 1950’s style nuclear-model families’ in the Commandments, I ask you? Other familial models have been around at least as long, and were even practiced by your God’s ‘chosen people’ for millennia. Times change, and cultures with them.

 

[James_Bonaparte]

im sorry but we have better things to think about…we as catholics are in a religious war. we need to start thinking of a form of bureaucracy. Oh and lets remember that why we may follow gods divine law. we are not subject to pining them on other. Homosexuals are humanbeings just as we are. I will not pretend to know gods will, but he loves all things, every blade of grass and every grain of sand. So if a man wishes to marry a man, or a women marry a women, then it is their’ right becase god gave us a decision. So…let them make theres.

May God Bless You all!

 

[RyanL]

No, it isn’t. Those services are available to people who need them in their current state. Marriage is not available to homosexuals as they are – and I might add, if they do try to ‘turn straight’ as you suggest, it often leads to depression, mental illness, and suicide.

Whatever. This is too tangential to devote any attention to.

This thread’s already a sprawling mess and you want to bring in transsexuality?

I want nothing to do with transsexual arguments. I used the example to prove a point.

I know what they mean and I meant it.

I really don’t think you do know. You tell me what Aristotle (and basically all philosophers since) meant by nature, and show me that this is the sense you were using the word, and I’ll concede the point – with apology.

Are you too afraid to answer?

No, I’m not afraid to answer - I’ve already given it. I told you that if you inject an apple with orange flavoring that doesn’t make it an orange. If you inject a chimp with self-awareness that doesn’t make it human; same goes with aliens.

Again, this is basic ontology.

To be human is to be sentient, self-aware, and technological.

Silly functionalists.

When will you people ever learn that humans are valuable for what we are, not for what we can do? This is the same thinking behind the killing of 85% of prenatal Down Syndrome humans - welcome to the new eugenics. If you can’t ***do ***X, you’re not human.

If you don’t think that this kind of thinking is wrong, just wait until they find the “gay gene” and start amneo-testing for that.

They’re plenty technological. I wasn’t talking about cell phones, I was talking about wheels and fire.

I keep forgetting that you’re the oracle for defining things like what makes someone technical enough to be human.

Mentally human-equivalent, then. Will we pass their idea of a Turing test? You’re either being obtuse or facetious.

I could care less if we pass their tests - we are human regardless and we have an immortal soul whether they like it or not.

BTW, no matter how well a Turing machine works, I still wouldn’t call it human. That’s just daft. It’s a smart calculator.

Where does it say ‘thou shalt have only 1950’s style nuclear-model families’ in the Commandments, I ask you?

No commandment. Try sociological studies.

Other familial models have been around at least as long, and were even practiced by your God’s ‘chosen people’ for millennia.

But for the hardness of their hearts. In the beginning it was not so.

Times change, and cultures with them.

But humans don’t.

This is from an Amicus brief in a Washington State Marriage Case:

To be sure, marriage is a permanent exclusive commitment, but the state’s purpose in sanctioning marriage is not to ensure that couples have children. The state’s interest in sanctioning marriage is to encourage individuals whose sexual activity results in children to be married to each other. That some married couples do not have children is immaterial to society’s interest in promoting an institution that responsibly channels procreation. Those who argue that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because there is no necessary link between marriage and procreation entirely miss the point. If any two or more individuals can “marry” and secure all of the benefits of civil marriage, then state sanctioned marriage is divested of its primary purpose: encouraging responsible procreation.

That some same-sex couples couples adopt children, or produce them with third party assistance also does not bear on the point that society’s interest in protecting the institution of marriage derives from its interest in responsible procreation. Sodomy can never produce children. Only a minute percentage of all children born are the result of technological intervention in human reproduction. The overwhelming majority of children are the result
of sexual relations between a man and a woman. Thus, society’s profound interest in channeling responsible procreation into marriage relationships between the man and woman who produce the children is not in the least
diminished by the fact that some same-sex couples can adopt children, or produce them through third party intervention.

Does that put the pieces together for you?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Mirdath]

Whatever. This is too tangential to devote any attention to.

You brought it up.

No, I’m not afraid to answer - I’ve already given it. I told you that if you inject an apple with orange flavoring that doesn’t make it an orange. If you inject a chimp with self-awareness that doesn’t make it human; same goes with aliens.

Since your petty pride won’t let me use the word ‘human’, I substituted ‘human-equivalent’. Is that still not enough?

When will you people ever learn that humans are valuable for what we are, not for what we can do? This is the same thinking behind the killing of 85% of prenatal Down Syndrome humans - welcome to the new eugenics. If you can’t ***do ***X, you’re not human.

Two out of three of what I listed are what humans are, not what we are capable of – and I might add, I believe humans should be capable of reading entire lists instead of just the third item.

I could care less if we pass their tests - we are human regardless and we have an immortal soul whether they like it or not.

Would you care if they decided we were animals? Pets, perhaps? Or even pests, of no more worth than a louse?

BTW, no matter how well a Turing machine works, I still wouldn’t call it human. That’s just daft. It’s a smart calculator.

A Turing machine has nothing to do with the Turing test beyond the name. Look them up.

No commandment. Try sociological studies.

No commandment… then you should not be opposed to people using other models. After all, studies are only studies, not the word of God, aren’t they?

But for the hardness of their hearts. In the beginning it was not so.

I dunno, God seemed pretty okay with polygyny in ancient Israel. His problem with the whole Bathsheba business wasn’t that David wanted her, his problem was that he sent Uriah out to be killed. Solomon is said to have had a thousand wives, and that’s from before he took up idolatry.

And in any case, polygyny is only one of many ‘alternative’ models of the family. What about having the extended family living together, and all participating in the raising of the younger generation? Perfectly acceptable, isn’t it? It’s practiced even now in America, especially in immigrant families. But it isn’t the nuclear model, so I guess it’s wicked or at least harmful by your lights.

But humans don’t.

I am amazed you can say that with a straight face.

This is from an Amicus brief in a Washington State Marriage Case:

Does that put the pieces together for you?

I said ‘the societal purpose of marriage is controlling sex’ how many posts up again? But woops, that makes it seem a little authoritarian, doesn’t it? Not kindly-sounding enough? Too bad, that’s really all it is. And while such an attitude towards marriage may have had its merits when food and resources were scarce, we’re not in that situation anymore.

Times change.

 

[RyanL]

You brought it up.

To make a point, not for discussion - a point which was apparently lost on you.

Since your petty pride won’t let me use the word ‘human’, I substituted ‘human-equivalent’. Is that still not enough?

This has nothing to do with pride, and everything to do with truth. Abraham Lincoln had a joke:

“If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don’t make it a leg.”

As for human-equivalent, I’m afraid I’m no longer sure what you’re asking. If you want to know if there are any circumstances where I think it’s appropriate for humans to engage in sexual activity with non-humans, the answer is no. If this isn’t what you’re asking, please tell me what you are after.

Two out of three of what I listed are what humans are, not what we are capable of – and I might add, I believe humans should be capable of reading entire lists instead of just the third item.

Cute, but misguided. Notice how I referenced Down Syndrome? Is the humanity of a particular individual dependent on his ability to actually reason, be sentient, be self-aware at any given point? If so, you’re a functionalist. If not, why on earth would you give such a list as to “what makes a human”? Why not rely on something more scientific - like biology?

Would you care if they decided we were animals? Pets, perhaps? Or even pests, of no more worth than a louse?

Of course I would care. Silly question.

A Turing machine has nothing to do with the Turing test beyond the name. Look them up.

I suppose that’s my Computer Science background showing. I thought that a Turing test was a test of a machine’s capability of performing human-like conversation, named after Professor Alan Turing (a computer scientist) and based on his paper “Computing machinery and intelligence”. Or at least that is what I learned in class.

Shows how much I know.

Please enlighten me as to what you mean when you use the term.

No commandment… then you should not be opposed to people using other models. After all, studies are only studies, not the word of God, aren’t they?

Why are you trying to bring God into the debate? I haven’t.

I dunno, God seemed pretty okay with polygyny in ancient Israel. His problem with the whole Bathsheba business…

Do you want to talk Bible or public policy? I’m here to talk the latter, but we can start a thread on the former if you would like. I’m sure I have much to learn from your exposition of Biblical truth.

Again, why are you trying to bring God into the debate? I haven’t.

And in any case, polygyny is only one of many ‘alternative’ models of the family.

Tru’ dat. Is it better for all involved than the standard nuclear model? What does the research suggest? If it’s not better, I’m hard pressed to find a reason we should endorse it.

What about having the extended family living together, and all participating in the raising of the younger generation? Perfectly acceptable, isn’t it? It’s practiced even now in America, especially in immigrant families.

Also very nice, and perhaps we should incentivize such arrangements. Oh, wait, we already do. There are tax breaks for caring for all kinds of dependents - elderly mothers and fathers, sick nieces and nephews, etc. The tax code encourages us to take care of each other.

So much for that argument.

Also, correct me if I’m wrong but don’t these live-in extended families also recognize a primacy of the nuclear family? Sure seems like it from every one I’ve known…

You’re still not focusing on the meat of the text from the Amicus brief, BTW.

But it isn’t the nuclear model, so I guess it’s wicked or at least harmful by your lights.

Where have I said that?

I am amazed you can say that with a straight face.

You’re right - humans change. We used to eat razor blades, but now we eat food. We used to use our hands as eyes and our elbows as hands.
The Bard:

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions, fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.

Sorry, dude. Humans change. A Jew might have been a human once, but not now. Humans have changed.

Wrong. Humans don’t change. Culture does. Is it really that hard a distinction to make?

…cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

…cont’d…

I said ‘the societal purpose of marriage is controlling sex’ how many posts up again?

And you’re still wrong.

But woops, that makes it seem a little authoritarian, doesn’t it?

No, it seems wrong.

Not kindly-sounding enough?

Not truthful-sounding enough.

Too bad, that’s really all it is.

Do you even read my posts or do you just vent? If it’s the latter you should really get a blog.

And while such an attitude towards marriage may have had its merits when food and resources were scarce, we’re not in that situation anymore.

Tell it to the single mothers struggling to make ends meet.

Times change.

Logic doesn’t. Be reasonable. Think things through. Use science and sociology.

Questions:

1. Is it better to have people engaging in procreational activity responsibly or irresponsibly?
2. What is the most responsible way of engaging in procreational activity, given that procreation will result?
3. Does non-procreational sexual activity (i.e., sodomy, oral sex, masturbatory activity, etc.) matter in the slightest in this analysis?
4. Given the juvenile crime and mental health statistics in so-called broken families, is this an area which justifies government involvement?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Mirdath]

Cute, but misguided. Notice how I referenced Down Syndrome? Is the humanity of a particular individual dependent on his ability to actually reason, be sentient, be self-aware at any given point? If so, you’re a functionalist. If not, why on earth would you give such a list as to “what makes a human”? Why not rely on something more scientific - like biology?

I thought we were discussing the nature, not the biology.

I suppose that’s my Computer Science background showing. I thought that a Turing test was a test of a machine’s capability of performing human-like conversation, named after Professor Alan Turing (a computer scientist) and based on his paper “Computing machinery and intelligence”. Or at least that is what I learned in class.

Shows how much I know.

Please enlighten me as to what you mean when you use the term.

A Turing machine is a device that can read and write on a tape and move that tape to the left or to the right depending on its instruction set. Theoretically, it can do anything a computer can. The Turing test is designed to answer the question ‘can X be distinguished from a person?’.

Tru’ dat. Is it better for all involved than the standard nuclear model? What does the research suggest? If it’s not better, I’m hard pressed to find a reason we should endorse it.

Let’s transpose that. If these other models are not actively harmful, why should we not allow them?

Also, correct me if I’m wrong but don’t these live-in extended families also recognize a primacy of the nuclear family? Sure seems like it from every one I’ve known…

Not always.

You’re still not focusing on the meat of the text from the Amicus brief, BTW.

It doesn’t add anything.

You’re right - humans change. We used to eat razor blades, but now we eat food. We used to use our hands as eyes and our elbows as hands.

We used to believe that kings were ordained by God. We don’t anymore.

Wrong. Humans don’t change. Culture does. Is it really that hard a distinction to make?

Is culture not defining of humanity?

Tell it to the single mothers struggling to make ends meet.

They are a prime example of the failure of the nuclear family model, aren’t they?

1. Is it better to have people engaging in procreational activity responsibly or irresponsibly?

Responsibly; however, the nuclear model has shown itself rather less than effective in preventing it, and if other types of unions are permitted it follows that there will be more unions in general and more responsibility.

1. What is the most responsible way of engaging in procreational activity, given that procreation will result?

Having sex with the intent of staying around to raise the result, if any. This does not require Ward and June.

1. Does non-procreational sexual activity (i.e., sodomy, oral sex, masturbatory activity, etc.) matter in the slightest in this analysis?

People matter, and people do all those things. People can also have heterosexual vaginal sex without babies resulting. Once again, procreative ability is not the sole determinant of who should be able to marry whom. Even you’ve said as much; why go back on it now?

1. Given the juvenile crime and mental health statistics in so-called broken families, is this an area which justifies government involvement?

I fail to see how this is relevant, unless you’re proposing making divorce, separation, imprisonment of married people, and annulment illegal.

 

[RyanL]

I thought we were discussing the nature, not the biology.

If it’s not human, it can’t have a human nature. Whatever else it might be, it’s not a human nature. It might have human-like characteristics, but it’s not in its nature a human.

I assert that the simplest test for humanity is to determine whether or not the particular individual organism you are looking at is biologically human. Your various functionalist descriptions exclude various humans from your class of humanity. I could provide examples, but you should be able to do this on your own. If you need help, pick a functionalist description (i.e., reason, self-awareness, cultural, etc.) and ask.

Let’s transpose that. If these other models are not actively harmful, why should we not allow them?

1. The burden is on the one asserting a novel concept. Show that it’s as good or better.
2. If you don’t provide this evidence, it’s experimental. It’s wrong to experiment on children.

Not always.

Show me the data.

It [the Amicus brief] doesn’t add anything.

It adds what you are lacking in your understanding about the original purpose of the state recognizing marriage.

They are a prime example of the failure of the nuclear family model, aren’t they?

They are a prime example of the lack of a nuclear family model. We, as a society, have failed them.

Be careful, I’m fairly liberal when it comes to social justice issues. I find my positions usually out liberal the liberals and out conservative the conservatives.

Responsibly; however, the nuclear model has shown itself rather less than effective in preventing it, and if other types of unions are permitted it follows that there will be more unions in general and more responsibility.

The nuclear family model was undermined by no-fault divorce, artificial contraception (which leads to increased adultery), and the “free love” promiscuous culture of the '60s.

Rather than try to strengthen the nuclear family, you have proposed removing government incentives and marginalizing it. You propose making it nothing more than a contract – and in our society we make and break contracts every day. How could your proposal not hurt the stability of a nuclear family?

Having sex with the intent of staying around to raise the result, if any.

Very good. Is there any way to make that intent express, and perhaps legally binding?

Does the state have an interest here, perhaps one which justifies incentivizing this conduct?

People matter, and people do all those things.

Irrelevant to the question and the discussion as a whole.

People can also have heterosexual vaginal sex without babies resulting.

Re-read the Amicus brief.

Once again, procreative ability is not the sole determinant of who should be able to marry whom. Even you’ve said as much; why go back on it now?

I haven’t.

I fail to see how this is relevant, unless you’re proposing making divorce, separation, imprisonment of married people, and annulment illegal.

Not illegal, simply more difficult for divorce, separation and annulment. As for imprisonment, I am open to suggestions.

…cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

…cont’d…

Maybe an analogous example would help.

**It’s illegal to carry a gun without a special dispensation from the state. **

Why?
**
Because it’s better for society that we don’t all carry guns. It makes us safer, as a whole. It prevents irresponsible gun activity.**

Yeah, but they did it in the old west.
**
Maybe they did, but that’s not the best model. It proved harmful for society in the long run.**

But why should it be illegal for me to carry a gun without a license? My gun isn’t loaded! I shoot blanks! (Cross-over infertility pun intended.)
**
That’s irrelevant. Gun carrying is dangerous activity (look at the statistics), and we’re trying to discourage irresponsible gun carrying. The fact that you can’t actually shoot your gun doesn’t matter. Gun carrying activity requires a state dispensation. Even if you fill the barrel with lead so that it can’t be fired, you can’t walk down main street swinging it without a license.**

Well I have a gun in the privacy of my own home. Lots of people do.

That’s fine. The state isn’t concerned with that activity with this particular law.

What if we just expand the licensing requirements so that anyone who wants one can have one?

Then the law is pointless. You’re missing the original purpose of the legislation.

That’s discriminatory.

That’s law. Every law discriminates.

But I saw a guy carrying a wet sponge shaped like a gun, and no one stopped him.

That’s not gun carrying activity. It’s a sham.

But criminals carry guns.

Yeah, and it’s illegal.

Some people who have this dispensation use their guns irresponsibly.
**
True, but as a whole the law promotes responsible gun carrying. We shouldn’t abandon the law because it’s misused.

**>> Why don’t you just let anyone carry any gun they want? I want a bazooka.

**No. Again, that won’t promote responsible gun carrying. Look at the original intent.

** >> But King David had a lot of swords!

Where on earth did that come from?!?

Can I carry a dog who’s holding a gun?

No. Get over it, already.

What if aliens or dolphins carried guns?

**Knock it off.

**>> Your closed-minded laws don’t make sense. Everyone should be able to have a gun.

I haven’t said a word about having guns, merely that gun carrying should be done responsibly and this law encourages that.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Mirdath]

1. The burden is on the one asserting a novel concept. Show that it’s as good or better.
2. If you don’t provide this evidence, it’s experimental. It’s wrong to experiment on children.

And then we get into the fact that every child is unique and that different structures and methods work better for different people, backed up by a large, if anecdotal, set of evidence. Wondrous. I’d rather not slide down that one.

It adds what you are lacking in your understanding about the original purpose of the state recognizing marriage.

Disagreement does not imply a lack of understanding.

They are a prime example of the lack of a nuclear family model. We, as a society, have failed them.

Then obviously something is wrong with this society’s structure as it stands. And shoehorning everyone into nuclear families does not seem to me to be the proper way to go about fixing it.

Rather than try to strengthen the nuclear family, you have proposed removing government incentives and marginalizing it. You propose making it nothing more than a contract – and in our society we make and break contracts every day. How could your proposal not hurt the stability of a nuclear family?

Because then we’d have fewer people marrying expressly for those incentives? Because then people who do are not suited to being one of the Cleavers can be happily married in a different model instead of trying to ‘keep up appearances’ and having it fall apart on them? Really, I can’t see how this doesn’t make sense.

Very good. Is there any way to make that intent express, and perhaps legally binding?

Stop talking like you’re my first grade teacher. My response should have been quite obvious: of course, but one-man-one-woman marriage is not the only way that intent can be expressed, nor should it be either assumed or forced to be the only way.

Not illegal, simply more difficult for divorce, separation and annulment. As for imprisonment, I am open to suggestions.

I’m having enough fun coming up with ideas for my way of doing things. That one’s all yours.

long-winded phallic gun analogy

I haven’t said a word about having guns, merely that gun carrying should be done responsibly and this law encourages that.

It encourages it for one specific group of people. There are other people out there too, you know – and your analogy is flawed because it doesn’t take them into account.

 

[RyanL]

There are other people out there too, you know – and your analogy is flawed because it doesn’t take them into account.

The “other people” can’t engage in baby-making activity.

What’s the purpose of the law?
To encourage people who will be engaging in baby-making activity to do so responsibly.

What does “responsibly” mean?
Responsibly means to do so within the context of a permanent commitment to be with the other and raise the child (if any) who results from this baby-making activity.

Can a man-man or woman-woman relationship engage in baby-making activity?
No. Whatever else they may be doing, they’re not making babies by doing it. Only a man and a woman can engage in baby-making activity.

Can an infertile heterosexual couple engage in baby-making activity?
Yup. There are plenty of stories of infertile people conceiving after years of baby-making activity, but even without that they are still engaging in the type of activity which makes babies.

What about adoption?
That’s not baby-making activity. That’s a separate discussion.

What about the fact that people view their relationships as less permanent now?
What about it? It sounds like the viewpoint needs to change, and perhaps there are ways to change it.

Covenant marriages are a concept to encourage this, as are graduated tax breaks for people the longer they stay married, divorce penalties which go to fund a state-provided child welfare program is another, elimination of “no-fault” divorce is another…the list could go on.

But doesn’t the fact that people currently view marriage as disposable justify eliminating the concept altogether?
That’s throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. There was good reason for the law in the first place, remember? Encourage responsible baby-making activity.

Isn’t the state’s involvement in marriage just about controlling sex?
In a word - no.

The longer answer is it depends what you mean by “sex”. If by sex you exclusively mean baby-making activity, then the state’s involvement is a means of encouraging responsibility in doing so; it does not, however, prohibit irresponsible baby-making activity. Thus, ‘control’ is not the right word.

If by “sex” you mean anything you can do with your genitals for self-gratification, the answer is clearly no. Marriage law says nothing about that.

Aren’t you shoehorning people into nuclear families with this law?
Yes and no.

No, in that you can have whatever kind of relationship you please. If you want an “open relationship”, spitting out lots of kids while doing so, you’re free to do that. The law doesn’t stop you.

Yes, in that the nuclear family model reflects responsible baby-making activity (remember: that’s all this particular law is concerned with) - it’s difficult to imagine a better model where the role of either parent isn’t marginalized in some way.

Mirdath:

Stop talking like you’re my first grade teacher.

Then stop answering like a first grader.

If you’re wondering why I’m going through this silly exercise of asking and answering my own questions, it’s because you’re not giving me mature enough ones to work with. You started going back to stirring the pot at the top of this page, and my responses have become increasingly curt. That’s why.

Now if you would like to discuss like a mature adult (and have me stop being so condescending), you need to stop with the “men can get an abortion in another hole” and the “but what about aliens” nonsense. There are much better questions to ask.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Homosexual’s do not have a natural right to raise offspring because they are not naturally compatible to produce offspring.

Children have the natural right to a father and mother because that’s the way it is setup in nature. Sometimes, children don’t get to enjoy this right but that is the failing of society not nature.

If consistency is a hobgoblin, then I must have a little mind.

Surely you mean homosexual COUPLES and not homosexual PERSONS. Homosexual PERSONS is absolutely capable of producing children. A homosexual COUPLE is not the right set of people to raise a child.

 

[Other_Eric]

Surely you mean homosexual COUPLES and not homosexual PERSONS. Homosexual PERSONS is absolutely capable of producing children. A homosexual COUPLE is not the right set of people to raise a child.

People with same-sex attractions, whether individuals or couples, have absolutely no right to raise or be anywhere near an impressionable child.