Gay Marriage is not "Progressive"

[Solitary]

And some people don't understand what Slick maneuvers are that neurotics use in their arguments to win at any cost thinking they are right when wrong!  Solitary

[stromboli]

Oh Jesus fucking Christ, This dude just doesn't get it. Marriage between gays has won in court and is a fact in 37 states. Any argument you make is null and void for that reason alone. How many times do I have to point out that every conceivable argument against gay marriage has been used in court and failed? It doesn't matter what argument you put on here, you have already lost.

And as to bias, dumbass, your entire argument is biased from the start.

[trdsf]

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.

Funny how you always descend into ad hominems when you don't have an answer.

The reason adoptions aren't more common is because they're bloody difficult and bloody expensive -- especially when movement between countries is involved.

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.

Functionally, that is exactly what you have implied.  You've staked out a position that the biological family is the be-all and end-all of marriage law, which is exactly what you stated here:

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.

And, by the bye, it's not the first time marriage changed in a major way... "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'"

You keep throwing out these words like "never", "first time" and never provide a link to back up your statement.

I'm serious.  Just admit you're against gay marriage because it squicks you.  I could at least respect that for the sake of honesty.

I might add -- no one's asking for same-sex marriage to be mandatory.  Just available.  You're talking like it's the end of Western civilization, when it's a simple case of two citizens in good standing who happen to be of the same sex saying they should have the same rights, privileges, benefits and responsibilities of two citizens in good standing who happen to be of the opposite sex.

Lemme put these out here:

What is the compelling state interest in denying to two citizens of adult age and in full mental capacity the same contract rights afforded to another two citizens, simply on the basis of their genders?

What is the Constitutional basis, especially in light of the Loving and Romer decisions, to uphold a state ban on same-sex marriages?

And lastly, what the hell difference does it make to you whom I marry?  And I mean real, physical, measurable difference, not some philosophical twaddle.  You don't know if I'm your next door neighbor or half a continent away.  So, what's the real, physical, measurable difference it makes to you?

[Hijiri Byakuren]

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.

So in other words, you're blowing smoke out your ass and claiming it as fact.

[Munch]

Seems so. One moment he's claiming the marriage has to be between a man and woman because multiple easily broken arguments he's made, yet now is saying there cannot possibly be kinship between someone unless related, meaning marriage itself is meaningless on the grounds of even men and women not related cannot find that kinship, according to him.

I really don't feel like adding much else, but it's funny, it's like watching a g-man video in the blind sense of arrogance going on here.

[stromboli]

This is the intellectual equivalent of smacking a sack full of shit with a 2X4.

[VladK]

You keep throwing out these words like "never", "first time" and never provide a link to back up your statement.

Really? Tell me a period in history where the end-game of marriage was not procreation and raising children then?

I mean sure it's entirely possible that some people throughout history married purely to have a fuck buddy or a house servant. But it was never something cultural or large-scale. Plus contraception and abortion weren't easy to do, if at all. 

yet now is saying there cannot possibly be kinship between someone unless related

More muddying tactics, I wasn't talking about romance in that post, I was talking about the affinity (non-sexual by the way, you pervert) that people feel towards their closest relatives. The closer the stronger.

You say none of this matters, and reproduction doesn't lead to any special bond between the parent and the child that results from that reproduction, and that you can have it just as easily with strangers, but I wonder, if you had two children, one biological, one adopted (and to make it even less ambiguous let's say it was adopted at 17, just 1 year short of legal adulthood) and one day they were both drowning and you could only save one. What are the odds that you would instinctively go for the biological one first? Pretty damn high I would say.

And lastly, what the hell difference does it make to you whom I marry?  And I mean real, physical, measurable difference, not some philosophical twaddle.  You don't know if I'm your next door neighbor or half a continent away.  So, what's the real, physical, measurable difference it makes to you?

I've just told you in previous posts. Marriage has certain benefits that the government (i.e. the people) have to provide. So it is not simply a matter of "being left alone". To make such an argument that it's simply about freedom, marriage would have to be based PURELY on negative rights.

Since that is not the case, you should be the one convincing me that it is a good idea for the government to subsidize the relationships of two men or two women. Or to put it more crudely, why should two people get tax breaks and a host of other benefits just because they fuck? Are they actually producing something for society that I'm not aware of? Should people also be able to legalize their friendships or is that just a step too far?

Also how do you square your support of gay marriage with the fact that now churches in UK and Denmark are being sued for "discrimination" if they won't perform a wedding ceremony, against their religious freedom?

I'd be curious to know if you believe gender segregation in prisons, bathrooms or sports teams is bigotry on par with South African apartheid or Jim Crow or merely being realistic about human sexual dimorphism.

[Munch]

Oooh I get it now. You don't want your tax dollars going to support gay marriage.

It doesn't matter how long a paragraphs and attempts to justify your position like a greasy politician, you are outright saying you think the same rights given to one group of people should not be given to another, because YOU think its wrong.

You honestly lack the foresight to try walking in another mans shoes.   

[stromboli]

(Stromboli searches for meme of man beating sack of shit with a 2X4...........)

[Munch]

(Stromboli searches for meme of man beating sack of shit with a 2X4...........)

I know, its the dead horse thing. Theres not even a debate here, its just someones bad perspective based on cognitive dissonance.

[Poison Tree]

Bold mine

It may also pave the way for unlimited polygamy and given the aggressive nature of political correctors on the left "polygamophobia" will likely be their next social crusade against the "evil intolerant" west.

So what's next? Marriage extended to BFFs? Brothers living together? Polygamous groups? Communes?

How is the change from 'women=property' to 'women=/=property' not major?  How is the change from polgamy to monogamy not major?

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.

So which is it, is polygamy the big boogie man and the next attempt to redefine marriage or has the meaning of marriage never changed because polygamy is still about birthing and raising children?

[aitm]

Hey, I gave him one post, you guys gave him seven pages……nuff said.

[stromboli]

Hey, I gave him one post, you guys gave him seven pages……nuff said.

Your generosity is profound. Or something.

[VladK]

Bold mine
So which is it, is polygamy the big boogie man and the next attempt to redefine marriage or has the meaning of marriage never changed because polygamy is still about birthing and raising children?

Polygamy, as it has been practiced so far, does not contradict the goal of birthing and raising children.

Although there are other aspects of it that make it detrimental to society and ultimately should be rejected. For one thing, where do you set the limit? Any arbitrary X you can think of, it just begs the question, why not X+1? If it's possible for entire communities or even towns, hypothetically speaking, to marry each other for benefits, then the whole thing becomes one big joke far divorced from its original purposes.

I also question how dedicated you can truly be to multiple spouses, given most people's tendencies towards romantic exclusivity and jealousy, especially the tendency of men to compete for the affection of women, sometimes violently, though this has been true for some women as well. How long would they really tolerate each other before one of them tried to prove he was a the "real man of the house" or the "one true love" or some shit like that and therefore should be the only one? (And if you're wondering why that doesn't happen in the Islamic world, well those women are conditioned to be submissive anyway and take it, through both divine and earthly retribution.) Also would this allow women to marry multiple partners or just men? You can't exclude women from it if men get to do it. Even so in practice it would still lead to a shortage of eligible women.

[VladK]

Oooh I get it now. You don't want your tax dollars going to support gay marriage.

Well technically that would be my tax RON in this case. You don't think people should be allowed to have a say in what happens to their tax money?

So much for freedom. You really need to look into the topic of positive vs. negative rights.

It doesn't matter how long a paragraphs and attempts to justify your position like a greasy politician, you are outright saying you think the same rights given to one group of people should not be given to another, because YOU think its wrong.

Actually if you think about it different groups are treated differently. Corporations are not NGOs are not marriages. All three are basically groups of people and they function differently legally.

By the way is it wrong to define official sports teams based on gender? Or just recognition of sexual dimorphism?