Marriage Debate

[thaiboxerken]

Oh, yeah. What a great point.

Since quality can't be assured (remember the "free choice" thing?), society should ban two parent families, grandparent involvement, then approve same sex marriage?

Please.............

That strawman isn't even cleverly disguised. Try again.

 

[Huntster]

Certainly not! He means that a family with an abusive, alcoholic father and a self-indulgent, drug addled mother is better than a pair of homosexual fathers who are happy, well adjusted, successful, and have lots of time to spend tending their child's needs, because heterosexuality is apparantly the most important criterion for raising children.

Are you positing that two parent families are (or can expected to be) disfunctional, and that homosexual marriages (unlike homosexual unions) are not, and that children should be automatically taken from natural parents and given to the homosexual partners?

If not, what is your position? Should children automatically be property of the state upon birth, so that the state can determine who is best to raise them?

 

[Upchurch]

Tradition.

Ah, yes. Tradition.

Polygamy is also a tradition. Child marriages are tradition. Arranged marriages are tradition. Heck, even gay marriage is a tradition if one goes back far enough.

It always amuses me when people call on tradition because they don't really mean all traditions but they one they've already cherry picked as the correct tradition. It's the intellectual equivalent of "'cause I said so, that's why."

 

[NobbyNobbs]

And that very basic point keeps getting ignored: what interest does the state have in PROMOTING SSM's?

Here's a possible answer. Imagine a world where SSM is legal, encouraged, and no different in any way than heterosexual marriage. Suddenly there are all these couple, many of whom probably wish to have children. Since biologically it becomes complicated to do so, a large percentage of them will adopt. The kids they adopted were formerly a burden on the state, but are no longer.

Advantage to the couple: they get the same rights as their neighbors.
Advantage to the kids: they get a permanent home.
Advantage to the state: they don't have to pay for foster care.

Disadvantage to the intolerant neighbor: they have to live with a little discomfort and examine their own morals a little more closely.

 

[Ziggurat]

The state could easily make a dividing line between different classes of heterosexual couples if it was so concerned with procreation. A solution off the top of my head would be to automatically annul all marriages that hadn't produced kids after a set number of years.

How many years? And why would you set it at X years instead of X+1? Or X-1? What about miscarriages: should those count, not count, reset the clock? Do you let them remarry someone else after that, or is one shot all they get? Yes, the government COULD do something like that, but that's complicated and messy, both of which are things to be avoided in government whenever possible. Banning SSM's isn't complicated at all, it's a pretty simple decision.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Oh, boy. Those paternity laws are a smashing success, huh?

And marriage has been?

Marriage has been a whole lot more successful than paternity laws.

What's more:...

While many view single parents as being a modern phenomenon the percentage of single parents has remained relatively constant. For instance in 1900 13% of Canadian families were single parent ones; in 1996 the number was 14%. The major change is in cause. In 1900 most single parent families were the result of the death of a parent, while in 1996 they were usually caused by divorce.

.......the same social morals that are arguing for homosexual marriages are the ones who have been degrading marriage in the past century.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Banning SSM's isn't complicated at all, it's a pretty simple decision.

Allowing SSM's is also a simple decision. All of these arguments about procreation and children are just red herrings and have nothing to do with people getting married.

 

[Huntster]

Bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Ummmmmmmmm........hate to burst your bubble, but.............

That definition also fits proponents of same-sex marriage.

Hate to burst your bubble, but I'm a proponent of same-sex marriage and I'm not gay.

Would you like to try again?

What does your sexuality have to do with the definition of the word "bigot", and the intolerance of both sides of the issue toward each other?

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's a possible answer. Imagine a world where SSM is legal, encouraged, and no different in any way than heterosexual marriage. Suddenly there are all these couple, many of whom probably wish to have children. Since biologically it becomes complicated to do so, a large percentage of them will adopt. The kids they adopted were formerly a burden on the state, but are no longer.

Indeed, that would be a benefit. There are still people who need convincing that SSM's can do an equivalent job at child rearing. I suspect that's probably the case, but that's not actually a given, and shouldn't be treated like one either.

 

[Upchurch]

I missed this one. Thanks, NobbyNobbs.

And that very basic point keeps getting ignored: what interest does the state have in PROMOTING SSM's?

from memory, so please excuse any typos:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The state has an interest in promoting ssm's because it forwards the basic principles of liberty and equity that said state was founded upon.

 

[thaiboxerken]

.......the same social morals that are arguing for homosexual marriages are the ones who have been degrading marriage in the past century.

That's just complete garbage. SSM proponents are not encouraging hetero couples to divorce.

 

[Upchurch]

What does your sexuality have to do with the definition of the word "bigot", and the intolerance of both sides of the issue toward each other?

To your first question: "group"
To your second question: See my KKK analogy.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What does your sexuality have to do with the definition of the word "bigot", and the intolerance of both sides of the issue toward each other?

I'm hardly intolerant of the people of the other side, if they changed their mind I'd accept their position. If homosexuals decided that they didn't want to get married, you'd still hate homosexuals.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're saying that those straight people who are tolerant of those who are different than themselves are bigots because they object to other straight people who are intolerant of those who are different from themselves.

No, actually, that's NOT what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that Thaiboxerken is a bigot. I myself made no claim about this larger class of people.

In short, people who are advocating for those who are different than themselves are not bigots.

That advocacy is not, in itself, any form of bigotry, that's true. But that was also never what I claimed. Rather, the inability to understand an opposing point of view plus the incorrect assumption that such an opposing view could only possibly originate from hatefulness IS a form of bigotry which Thaiboxerken exhibited. None of this is predicated on Thai's sexuality, OR the sexuality of anyone with opposing views.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Rather, the inability to understand an opposing point of view plus the incorrect assumption that such an opposing view could only possibly originate from hatefulness IS a form of bigotry which Thaiboxerken exhibited. None of this is predicated on Thai's sexuality, OR the sexuality of anyone with opposing views.

I understand the opposing viewpoint, I don't agree with it. I don't agree that hating homosexuals is a good thing or a valid reason to ban gay marriage. The opposing side has yet to bring up any valid arguments against gay marriage.

If you said interracial marriage should be banned, I'd also call you a racist.

 

[rocketdodger]

Allowing SSM's is also a simple decision. All of these arguments about procreation and children are just red herrings and have nothing to do with people getting married.

I agree with ken.

Arguing against SSM is like arguing against the Apollo program taking water to the moon. In a theoretical sense people can make valid cases against it -- we need that valuable water on Earth! But in reality...

 

[rocketdodger]

I'm hardly intolerant of the people of the other side, if they changed their mind I'd accept their position. If homosexuals decided that they didn't want to get married, you'd still hate homosexuals.

That is the closest thing to a Chuck Norris roundhouse in a debate that I have ever seen...ouch.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Ummmmmmmmm........hate to burst your bubble, but.............

That definition also fits proponents of same-sex marriage.

No, it doesn't. I happen not to be homosexual or want to marry within my own gender. Thus I'm supporting the rights of people OUTSIDE of my own demographic.

Bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Actually, I suppose you're capable of understanding the English language, so I must assume that you are just being selective on your acceptance of the language.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I agree with ken.

Arguing against SSM is like arguing against the Apollo program taking water to the moon. In a theoretical sense people can make valid cases against it -- we need that valuable water on Earth! But in reality...

Yes, the anti-gay people have taken the argument away from marriage and into raising children, single parenting, and "state's interest" in procreation. Let's get back to the issue. Is there ANY valid reason to ban same-sex marriage?

 

[Mid]

How many years? And why would you set it at X years instead of X+1? Or X-1? What about miscarriages: should those count, not count, reset the clock? Do you let them remarry someone else after that, or is one shot all they get? Yes, the government COULD do something like that, but that's complicated and messy, both of which are things to be avoided in government whenever possible. Banning SSM's isn't complicated at all, it's a pretty simple decision.

It would depend on how determined the state was that marriage should only be for procreation. If it was super concerned it could pick some arbitrarily low number of years before the annulment, lets say 5. If it just wanted to get across the point that marriages is only for having kids and a reward for having them, then any marriage that hasn't produced kids by the time the wife reaches, say 55, could be automatically annulled. Obviously in both cases remarriage shouldn't be allowed as punishment for breaking their contract with the state. The option of which option to pick I'd leave up to the those framing the constitutional amendment. I don't think either options is overly complicated, heartless and cruel yes, but not complicated