Unrestricted "marriage" for everyone and everything- why not?

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t love you…but that’s only because I’m into…men

I detect another insult here, but with the way you use words, I just am not sure any more.

You have left me so confused.

Too bad about the “men” thing, though. Women are so delightful.

 

[Ethan88]

I detect another insult here, but with the way you use words, I just am not sure any more.

You have left me so confused.

What’s so confusing? Each time I posted a response, you pointed out a typo, or even more bizarre, typos you inserted yourself…and then claim I’m insulting you?

Too bad about the “men” thing, though. Women are so delightful.

If only they thought you were delightful, you’d spend more time with them than hating on gay guys

 

[ccmnxc]

For the sake of argument: I know that benefits extended to gay couples come in the absence to have children. I guess my question is whether or not the revenue from these marriages, including lisences, hotel rooms, ceremonies, etc, would outweigh the loss from benefits?

 

[fix]

It is a government standard and it can change. Just like you want the government to call you married,

True. The argument always goes that way.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What’s so confusing? Each time I posted a response, you pointed out a typo, or even more bizarre, typos you inserted yourself…and then claim I’m insulting you?

Man up, Ethan! You know the truth.

If only they thought you were delightful, you’d spend more time with them than hating on gay guys

How do you equate having a coherent concept of what marriage is to “hating on gay guys?”

I am expounding a very reasonable viewpoint. Gay couples do not have a procreative relationship and a procreative relationship is a necessary, although not sufficient condition, for any relationship to be called a marriage.

I could spend time explaining the difference between necessary and sufficient, but, at this point, I’m not sure it would make a difference to you.

However negatively you choose to translate my position is your problem, not mine.

Ever considered the possibility that it is your self image that skews your perspective?

That when someone demonstrates what amounts to a more consistent and plausible perspective you resort to blame and projection of your own turmoil because you don’t have a reasonable answer?

The problem here is you framing the issue on your terms alone to the exclusion of any alternative possibility. In other words, you are not being fair-minded on how you consider my points because you have such a vested interest.

 

[Bradski]

Why do you think the state (defined as the collection of all its citizens) does exist, then?

I’d recommend the book from which I quoted earlier. In the first instance, which has zero to do with the matter in hand, it’s related to property rights.

But let’s clarify this point you are making because I come across it now and then and I’ve never had anyone take it any further than just stating it as if it was self explanatory.

It appears that you are saying that if gays are allowed to call the ceremony that some of them go through as a public committment to each other ‘marriage’ then the state, by allowing it, is contradicting the very reason for its existence, which is to encourage its citizens to procreate in able to continue its own existence.

Have I given a fair account of your point?

 

[Stephen168]

What are you talking about?

I’ve been talking about marriage. Marriage is that place where children are created and raised. I also told you in post #124 that sex and procreation are not the same thing.
To summarize again: Marriage, sex, and procreation are not the same thing, but are related.

Lots of couples together are sterile, I don’t base my morality on whether a relationship can procreate, otherwise a rapist could use the same logic to his victim.

You still think every act of sex intercourse is procreative, even though I’ve explained it to many times see post #124.
The purpose of rape is not procreation. Rape is not a marital act. Rape has nothing to do with marriage, yet you include it in your argument.

What are you talking about? Can you not read? Use a woman for invitro, that’s how it works, not rape her!

Don’t take offense to this question, but is English your first language? What you just said was equivalent to a Nurse saying “I used someone’s blood to inject into this patient” and you calling her a supporter of rape.

Maybe English is not your first language, so I apologize if you didn’t understand what the word ‘use’ means.

When I first went into the United States military to learn a trade; electricity. I was told by an instructor that the more I learned about electricity, the more I would realize how much I didn’t know about electricity. I found that nugget of wisdom to apply to many situations over the last few decades. I also helps me understand people who quickly like to call other people stupid. The reason they do it is because they don’t know enough to know how much they don’t know. So I take know offense, you can’t help it.

Wait, you’ve already forgotten what we discussed? I thought I made it clear that the origins of marriage are unknown and that the definition (and is different) depending on the various cultures that existed, and that even gay marriages existed during the Ming dynasty.

There have been homosexuals throughout history but no same sex unions were called marriage.

I didn’t forget, I answered it in post #124. I also asked you a question in that post which you have not answered. I’ve asked you twice but few people on your side of the argument do. It causes them to have to think about more than their own wants.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It appears that you are saying that if gays are allowed to call the ceremony that some of them go through as a public committment to each other ‘marriage’ then the state, by allowing it, is contradicting the very reason for its existence, which is to encourage its citizens to procreate in able to continue its own existence.

Have I given a fair account of your point?

Not quite. But thanks for asking!

The state, as the accountable governing body representing the collection of its citizens has an inherent responsibility to ensure that the well-being of the body of its citizens is consistently looked after by the formulation and execution of just laws.

The well-being of the citizens is borne not only to the present living generation but by extension to all future citizens, as well.

In a family, the “leadership” does not, prudentially speaking, put all their efforts into satisfying the current desires of existing members, but have a view to the future by “planning” and undertaking courses of prudential action that will promote the success of all the members in the future. To take a position of spending all resources and “live for today” is unwise because the family group will continue to expand and be successful over many generations. To not safeguard the future success of family members is tantamount to negligence on the part of current members.

As regards the state, the only means by which the state (collection of citizens) can continue into the future is by the propagation of its members. The state of marriage (the union of a committed and loving couple for life) is the only means by which future generations can be created and their long term well-being assured. Transient sexual unions do not assure the well-being of future citizens. Same sex unions do no create new generations.

To downplay the responsibility of the government for future generations in supporting the value and central importance of marriage in continuing the “life” of the state is a negligent and dangerous position for anyone to take. If the centrality of the family unit is left defenseless, or allowed to be contaminated by numerous “alternatives,” the core and strength of the continuity of the state will be weakened and eroded.

The state has a vested interest in monitoring marriage, in terms of keeping the institution strong and in keeping parties who have entered into marriage responsible to their commitment.

Redefining marriage simply means opening it up to experiment and allowing individuals to more easily forsake commitments to biological offspring based upon “feelings” rather than responsibility. If marriage is simply about feelings or attractions, then when non-committal feelings or loss of attraction occurs, personal negligence towards responsibilities is easily justified and institutionally sanctioned, even by the state.

It isn’t about attraction, it’s about love, but a love deeply rooted in the biological reality of who and what we are.

To water down the definition of marriage in any way is to negate its value and esteem in the eyes and duties of all.

 

[Peter_Plato]

… from previous

One only has to look at the erosion of the state of marriage since no fault divorce laws were enacted. The birth rate in many western countries is the lowest it’s been since records were kept and about 20 countries now have a negative rate. That is not ensuring the future of a nation. Most newly married couples see their commitment to each other and to their young as a conditional one. Abortion for any reason is rampant. That is not a strong indicator that couples nor cultures have any real concern for the care of their offspring, when both can have such an indifferent attitude towards killing them. Seniors are being forsaken, “dumped” in nursing homes and now euthanasia is strongly advocated. Again, not an indicator of a strong commitment on the part of this generation to the well-being of all members of society. We should be concerned. The problem is many, too many, are not.

This is more a culture on the run from itself, battening the hatches for individual survival at all costs and enacting legislation to ensure that the law won’t come down hard on irresponsible behaviour and negligence toward the lives of others. The governing bodies in most jurisdictions merely mirror the will of the people to get what you can now because this ain’t gonna go on long. There is palpable and ubiquitous despair that is the prime motivator and the false shepherds in the media and politics who promise inane current pleasantries in place of the future good of all are having a field day.

Permissive abortion laws and the redefinition of marriage are merely symptoms of a far reaching malady. The people and their governments have abandoned hope in the future and replaced it with a regimen of numbing the taste of reality with self-delusion or consensual dissipation. Politicians in many countries abdicated their real responsibilities to the good of the people many years ago. We are just feeling the effects today. The truth promoted by the media and culture reflects the fact that delusion and mob rule have become the norm. Intimidation is the determiner of “truth.” Even you, Bradski, are convinced by its power.

Your whole idea of what a marriage is has been so colored by the influence of the culture you live in, that you cannot even recognize the truth and are frightened by the idea of dissenting from it.

I can’t fathom what it must be like to not care if a part of a person - their children - do not carry on after they die, to not care if their own life carries on after them or not. I cannot even consider the mind of someone who looks at the procreative potential of joining with another human being in love to create new life that will come into existence bearing a part of both of them, as being “not for me.” I am filled with awe, wonder and mystery when I think about my own children and that who and what they are is a part of the love shared by my wife and I.

Honestly, I don’t get same sex “attraction” and how that could even come close to replacing the phenomenal adventure and mystery of what loving and creating new life is all about. Same sex unions are, in my eyes, fundamentally flawed. There is a missing element that has been replaced by a facsimile that will never serve to fill the gap. But, hey, to each his own. If someone doesn’t want fullness of life, that’s a choice they make.

But, a rose by any other name is still a rose, and a viola will never be a rose, no matter how insistent viola lovers are. For the government not to protect the roses or tend them carefully, is a certain invitation for the weeds to take root. I give this culture about 40 years before anarchy rules. Hopefully, a few roses, likely the real thorny ones, will survive among the weeds to, again hopefully, prompt strategies to prevent complete extinction. Maybe then, laws will be enacted to “protect” marriages as laws protect pandas or tigers today. Too bad present day governments do not have the foresight to see past the loud clamouring and wild accusations.

 

[Ethan88]

So I was writing this long reply when my boyfriend noticed, and he was like “sweetie, what are you doing?” and then I told him I was just defending science, facts, gay people, etc and I was complaining how I had to repeat myself.

He says to me, in the cutest voice:
“honey, you’re debating with people who have aren’t going to change, you should dedicate this time to changing things in REAL life, not minds that aren’t willing to change”

And he’s right. I mean I’m arguing with two people, one is for legalizing pedophilia, the other thinks marriage originated when the first two humans decided to bang. So while I can’t commit to commenting here 24/7 like Peter and Stephen, as I have a life, I can make a difference in my community.

I’ll see you two in 10 years, we’ll see where the gay-rights fight will be. 9 states down, 41 to go , and while you’re busy commenting on a forum about how great pedophilia will be, we’ll be out there changing the word to be a loving, more accepting place.

Cheers

 

[Bradski]

I’ll see you two in 10 years, we’ll see where the gay-rights fight will be. 9 states down, 41 to go.

I think that you’re right Ethan. The world will be a better place in ten years time. But the debate needs to rise above the equivalent of a schoolyard fracas.