Gay Marriage is not "Progressive"

[VladK]

You want to deny them equal rights.

QED.

They have equal rights. They can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like me, if they are inclined to do so for whatever reason. Likewise, I'm straight. I can't marry a man either because marriage is defined as man+woman. In this case, individuals aren't actually treated differently, groups are. The properties of a group do not necessarily extend to the individual. That would be a fallacy of division. Airplanes can fly. Individual parts that make up the plane can't.

A women's sports team is defined as a team of X members, all female. Men do not get to join that, there isn't even ONE spot for them. Same with men's sports team. Women can't join. Is that bigotry? No, it's simply a recognition of sexual dimorphism in humans.

OK, so the Church of England is being sued for not performing gay weddings.  It has to go to court to be tested, so everyone knows what obligations Churches have.

No it doesn't. Freedom of religion, at least in so far as it's not excercised to mask a political agenda (Sharia law, Dominionism) or illegal activity (pedophilia coverups, tax evasion), is and should be considered unalienable, since it's a matter of personal conscience. Nobody is forcing you to be a Christian if you don't like their values. In terms of doctrine, there is nothing to test. Their church, their rules. If I make my own club and you don't like the rules, don't join.

A better question would be, why do you insist on being part of a religion (or a club for that matter) whose values you find to be stupid and why should they conform to your views against their conscience? Just don't go there dude.

It's a little different in the UK, since the Church of England is the official state church.

Then privatize it. There shouldn't be any state church.

Yes, that makes it even more interesting to watch.  Who will determine British policy?  The state or the church?  How can the state endorse a church, but not it's policy?  I find these questions interesting and important. Can they be ignored?

Religious marriage is separate from legal marriage.

[Atheon]

They have equal rights.

Yes, in 36 states, and counting. In the other 14, they do NOT have equal rights, at least when it comes to marriage.

They can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like me...

You're using the same faulty logic that the bigoted opponents of interracial marriage used back in the 60s. "Everybody has the same right to marry... people of the same race."

That logic was as flawed back then as it is now.

You lose. You have amply demonstrated your bigotry and intellectual ineptitude. Now go away.

[SGOS]

Religious marriage is separate from legal marriage.

I suppose you could make a case that religious marriage does exist, but I certainly could not define it, and it's a marriage that doesn't seem to amount to anything.  All the church really does is perform a ritual.  It's not like you get an official document signed by God, and as far as I know, a big hand doesn't come down out of the sky and bless anyone on the head when they get married in a church.  I do agree that it's odd that anyone needs a "religious marriage", no matter whether they are gay or straight.  But I digress.  I still find the legal arguments interesting.  And welcome to western Juris prudence, where everything must be tested in a court of law.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

And that is not a good thing. The bond between natural mother/father and child once broken can never be fully replicated. Did you know for example that one of Elliot Rodger's greivances was that he could not relate to his step mom Soumaya and could never regard her as a "real mom"? In less extreme cases children of foster parents (even straight foster parents) still have an urge to seek out their real parents, or at least find out what happened to them if they're no longer alive.

Your ideology denies all of this in the name of "equality" and "not offending people".

Now children being raised by non-biological parents, sometimes this is inevitable due to parents dying or otherwise becoming unable to parent effectively (disabilities, jail, mental illness etc.) But as a society we should not deliberately encourage circumstances where children are separated from their biological parents. Surrogacy and sperm donation being examples. These are not accidents or unfortunate circumstances, these are deliberate actions and people need to be called out for it.

Care to back this up with some evidence?

I did a quick search, and was unable to find any study that conclusively proves that the relationship with non-biological parents is inherently different from that of biological parents. The one study I did find did not account for the social stigma artificially placed on same-sex relationships by intolerant sections of society that might lead to different economic circumstances for those families.

[Shiranu]

I feel like OP would hate me... born to dead-beat parents, adopted, raised by a single widowed mother whom the government payed hundreds of thousands of dollars for her dying husband's cancer treatments, and in favour of gay's having every right to marry... I feel like my life is everything OP is against...

And that makes me slightly happy.

[stromboli]

I was raised by a single mother. I'm not an axe murderer and have had a successful professional life, with 3 children all who are professionally successful. My wife was raised in a staunch Mormon household with a mother and father and 4 sisters. She was mentally and physically abused growing up. I am the man who saved her from a hellish situation, which is one reason our marriage bond is so strong. Any number of successful people have been raised by single mothers, single fathers, stepmothers and fathers and so on. There is good parenting and bad parenting. There is no one standard model of what is appropriate or best for children.

Trying to stipulate that there is a "best" model for child raising is silly. I guarantee every argument you have used here, and probably many you haven't thought of, have been used against gay marriage. That it has won in the courts ought to be a clue, but apparently you don't get it. 

[VladK]

Atheon, I already addressed that point many times, go read my previous posts cause we're just going in circles now. I have nothing more to say on the subject of interracial marriage compared to ay marriage. If you don't get it now why they're not the same you never will.

Care to back this up with some evidence?

I did a quick search, and was unable to find any study that conclusively proves that the relationship with non-biological parents is inherently different from that of biological parents. The one study I did find did not account for the social stigma artificially placed on same-sex relationships by intolerant sections of society that might lead to different economic circumstances for those families.

Dude, get a clue about human nature. You don't need a comprehensive study to figure out that people generally speaking have an affinity towards their closest kin that is almost impossible to replicate with strangers.

Most people are never going to have the exact same level of attachment to non-biological children, although some might come close. If they did, adoptions would be far more common than they are. After all, from a purely logical point of view, it's easier than going through 9 months of pregnancy and Africa and some other parts of the world are incredibly overpopulated anyway. Plenty of kids to choose from and you can get them faster than 9 months without going through all that painful trouble. So why don't couples who are fertile adopt more, either nationally or internationally, if having a child with their genes doesn't matter and any child will do?

Non-biological parenthood should be a last resort for children who have lost their real parents or have unfit parents. Not a normative part of society.

I was raised by a single mother. I'm not an axe murderer and have had a successful professional life, with 3 children all who are professionally successful. My wife was raised in a staunch Mormon household with a mother and father and 4 sisters. She was mentally and physically abused growing up. I am the man who saved her from a hellish situation, which is one reason our marriage bond is so strong. Any number of successful people have been raised by single mothers, single fathers, stepmothers and fathers and so on.

Do you understand the difference between:

- all A are X
- A are more likely to be X

Apparently not.

Plus you are obviously emotionally invested, and that right there should be the end of the discussion. It's almost as pointless as trying to argue in favor of gun rights with the father of someone who got shot and is anti-guns. No matter what you say it's not going to get through.

[trdsf]

You do realize that even such changes are minor when compared to the kind of change you're proposing? The exact details have changed over time, but continuation of the human species has always been at the center.

How is the change from 'women=property' to 'women=/=property' not major?  How is the change from polgamy to monogamy not major?  Even the societal change to permitting interracial marriages is within living memory -- and IMO a better comparison for the amount of change involved.  Hardly anyone takes a blind bit of notice to them anymore.  You couldn't say that fifty years ago.  You really couldn't say that forty, or even thirty years ago.

Change happens.  It's natural.

Also, the 'continuation of the species' argument is meaningless.  By that standard, men and women who have been sterilized by medical necessity, accident, genetics or personal choice shouldn't get married because they can't 'continue the species'.  Couples who find each other late in life, past the age of a woman safely--or even physically--having children shouldn't get married because they can't 'continue the species'.  Couples who simply choose not to have children shouldn't be married because they won't 'continue the species'.

What it seems to come down to, fundamentally, is that you just don't like the idea of it.  That's fine, at least just have the honesty to say "It's icky!", and then don't marry someone of your own gender.

[VladK]

How is the change from 'women=property' to 'women=/=property' not major?  How is the change from polgamy to monogamy not major?  Even the societal change to permitting interracial marriages is within living memory -- and IMO a better comparison for the amount of change involved.  Hardly anyone takes a blind bit of notice to them anymore.  You couldn't say that fifty years ago.  You really couldn't say that forty, or even thirty years ago.

Change happens.  It's natural.

Also, the 'continuation of the species' argument is meaningless.  By that standard, men and women who have been sterilized by medical necessity, accident, genetics or personal choice shouldn't get married because they can't 'continue the species'.  Couples who find each other late in life, past the age of a woman safely--or even physically--having children shouldn't get married because they can't 'continue the species'.  Couples who simply choose not to have children shouldn't be married because they won't 'continue the species'.

What it seems to come down to, fundamentally, is that you just don't like the idea of it.  That's fine, at least just have the honesty to say "It's icky!", and then don't marry someone of your own gender.

I addressed infertile couples too. See previous posts.

And no, marriage has never changed its end-game of providing a stable environment to birth and raise children in. That was true even when wives were completely subordinate to their husbands. It was also true when tribes and kingdoms arranged marriages for unity. This is literally the first time in history a movement is seriously arguing that marriage should be about something else.

[trdsf]

Now children being raised by non-biological parents, sometimes this is inevitable due to parents dying or otherwise becoming unable to parent effectively (disabilities, jail, mental illness etc.) But as a society we should not deliberately encourage circumstances where children are separated from their biological parents. Surrogacy and sperm donation being examples. These are not accidents or unfortunate circumstances, these are deliberate actions and people need to be called out for it.

Try volunteering at your county children services office for a while.  That ought to clear your head about when children should and should not be separated from their biological parents, and who does and does not make a suitable parent.

I've seen biological parents get it together and we are delighted to reunite the family.  I've also seen biological parents just get worse and worse until permanent placement away from them isn't an option, it's an obligation.  A DNA connection does not inherently make a suitable parent.

Any damn fool can be a mother or father -- and many damn fools are.  It takes effort to be a parent, not a biological connection.

[VladK]

It takes effort to be a parent, not a biological connection.

Both are important. You're just trying to muddy the waters here.

[trdsf]

I addressed infertile couples too. See previous posts.

And no, marriage has never changed its end-game of providing a stable environment to birth and raise children in. That was true even when wives were completely subordinate to their husbands. It was also true when tribes and kingdoms arranged marriages for unity. This is literally the first time in history a movement is seriously arguing that marriage should be about something else.

You can't have it both ways.  If marriage is about birthing and raising children, then you are necessarily delegitimizing non-producing marriages.  If you are not going to delegitimize non-producing marriages, then you cannot object to same-sex marriages because they don't produce their own children.  You need some other basis because this one does not stand; it is inherently self-contradictory.

[trdsf]

Both are important. You're just trying to muddy the waters here.

No, that was pretty damn crystal clear.  You're just dodging the question.

[VladK]

No, that was pretty damn crystal clear.  You're just dodging the question.

I never said or implied that abusive or otherwise unfit (in jail, seriously disabled etc.) parents should keep their children just because they're biological.

[VladK]

No, that was pretty damn crystal clear.  You're just dodging the question.

Also tell me something, if DNA doesn't matter, why aren't adoptions more common? They're certainly easier than 9 months of pregnancy and there's an almost unlimited supply abroad in certain parts of the world.

I guess you just don't understand human nature well.