SSM supporters: What do you think of polygamy?

[mjwise]

My objective, nonanecdotal, nondoctrinal basis for arguing that marriage should be about procreation is based on biology, sociology, and reason. Exactly two people are needed to procreate; one must be male and the other female.

Procreative activity is simply not a requirement of civil marriage, at least in any form practiced in the US. These changes were not introduced by the present ruling.

The children that result from such union will need to be cared for for many years, and these children do best when they are raised by their natural parents.

Most of time, if they are suitable. However, even an avowed pedophile may marry and procreate. Ability to conceive a child does not automatically indicate an ability to raise a child, and of course much more commonly parents cannot always raise their natural children because of unforeseeable circumstances.

I agree that everyone should have a right to engage in marriage, including homosexuals. Marriage ought to be properly understood as the permanent fruitful union of a man and a woman. A gay man does not desire marriage, he desires to have his sexual union with another man legitimized and treated the same as marriage when it does not serve the same purpose (the begetting and raising of children with their natural parents).

These points seem doctrinal (especially the “ought to be”), especially since civil marriage already diverged significantly from this model.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think it gets any more objective than anatomy. It is the side arguing in favor of same sex marriage that makes claims based on emotions and anecdotes: “See how Jim and Dave love each other! Why don’t they deserve to be happy?” My objective, nonanecdotal, nondoctrinal basis for arguing that marriage should be about procreation is based on biology, sociology, and reason. Exactly two people are needed to procreate; one must be male and the other female. God/nature/evolution has designed us such that the ability to procreate is intimately tied with the pleasure-seeking behavior of sex. The children that result from such union will need to be cared for for many years, and these children do best when they are raised by their natural parents.

I agree that everyone should have a right to engage in marriage, including homosexuals. Marriage ought to be properly understood as the permanent fruitful union of a man and a woman. A gay man does not desire marriage, he desires to have his sexual union with another man legitimized and treated the same as marriage when it does not serve the same purpose (the begetting and raising of children with their natural parents).

:bowdown2:

 

[EasterJoy]

That’s exactly the paradigm you’ve set up, mj.

Love and sex have nothing to do with marriage, in your paradigm.

Go figure.

Even little children understand love and marriage go together.

But society today has become so absurd in their thinking now that they are asserting, ostensibly with a straight face, “Since when was love a prerequisite for marriage?”

Now 'tis true that there were many a society when love and marriage didn’t go together. Marriage was a political or financial gambit…but we all know that the ideal for marriage was…love first. Then marriage. Then babies.

Even my grade schooler knows that.

Do little children understand that affection or a situation of mutual care between adults is not sufficient to constitute a marital relationship? Perhaps not. Adults ought to, though. Children have views of marriage that are so over-simplified as to be false. Adults should also be willing to recognize this, too.

Sexual complementarity has always been not just a prerequisite for marriage, but the foundation of marriage. It is a non-negotiable. We may be innocent of this foundation of marriage when we are very young, but that doesn’t mean marriage has ever been anything else.

 

[nodito]

These points seem doctrinal (especially the “ought to be”), especially since civil marriage already diverged significantly from this model.

When I use the term “ought to be understood” I mean “properly reasoned to be.” I think we should be able to reach the position that homosexual unions are wrong and unnatural using logic, not religion.

But I agree that the civil model of marriage is flawed, and diverges significantly from what reason tells us marriage should be. Rather than going in the direction your propose (“therefore, it’s discrimination to prevent two men from marrying”) I would suggest reforming civil marriage so that it is more in accord with natural law (e.g., eliminating no-fault divorce, discouraging contraceptive use, etc). But that might be an argument for a different thread.

 

[clem456]

Procreative activity is simply not a requirement of civil marriage, at least in any form practiced in the US. These changes were not introduced by the present ruling.

Human beings are ordered to what we might call “the good”. Every human activity is ordered to a higher purpose, not merely to the satisfaction of our emotions and personal desires. Our fulfillment is not found in utilitarian or minimalistic self-centeredness. Our civil structures should promote and protect the flourishing of all human beings, not merely protect their minimal desires and emotions.

To paraphrase your statement above:

Productivity is simply not a requirement of work.

Is this true? In a very minimalistic and self centered way, it is true. There are "workers who do not produce fruit. Yet you know, and it is commonly accepted, that the purpose of work is to be fruitful, to produce something of value that benefits society, that contributes to “the good” of humanity.

You are aware of the mountain of laws our society puts forth in the area of labor? Many of these laws are aimed at protecting the right to work, the health and safety of the worker, etc…
However, nowhere is the natural end of the vocation to work challenged, namely productivity. It is somehow assumed that productivity is a fruit of work. Some are more productive than others, some are not productive at all. Still, no one denies the natural purpose of work (although sadly, even that can be debated).

It is a lie that the natural end of work is irrelevant to the civil institutions which address it. It is important for a society to protect productivity, because it promotes human flourishing.

And so it goes.

 

[PRmerger]

Do little children understand that affection or a situation of mutual care between adults is not sufficient to constitute a marital relationship?

Some do. Some don’t.