For People Who Think Gay Sex Is Wrong And Gives "Sex Is For Procreation" As A Reason

[Dlx2]

So let me see if I understand your logic correctly........
1. those who have consensual sex for the purpose of procreation have to defend themselves because their actions create an ethical burden on society.
2. a couple that wants to have children, and thus tries to have a child, must defend themselves because they are creating and ethical burden on society.
3. parents create ethical burdens on society.
4. We all have been created by parents
5. we are all ethical burdens on society.
that's the DAS I've ever heard.

Take a look at the effects of overpopulation and then have the gall to say that again. Please.

[Griff]

Take a look at the effects of overpopulation and then have the gall to say that again. Please.Whether or not we are overpopulated depends upon whether or not we are still capable of producing enough to fulfill the demands of our population. Otherwise, whether there are 80 thousand or 80 billion people on the planet has no ethical meaning whatsoever. If the human population were to dramatically recede for the next million years due to a low fertility rate, the remaining population would be under no ethical obligation to continue the species. They would have every right to live childless until the day that they died and let the descendents of some tribe of mountain gorillas pick up later and continue from where they left off. On overpopulation, humanity is thankfully far from that threshold. We need to be thinking well ahead of ourselves, though, to make sure that we have an enforceable policy with which to deal with it in the event that we ever get that far. With any luck, our population will level off naturally without a need for any such thing.

[verv2]

It isn't gall. Your statement is rediculous. It is inclusive of everyone, implying that no one should have children.

[Griff]

It isn't gall. Your statement is rediculous. It is inclusive of everyone, implying that no one should have children.Perhaps the world would be a better place if we had a year without a birthday.

[Ghostdog]

Imagine a hetero couple:

1) Is oral sex wrong?
2) Is protected sex wrong?
3) Is sex without thought of procreation wrong?
4) Is masturbation/foreplay wrong?

1: Not really, though I think its a little kinky
2: Nope
3: Not examining possible consequences is wrong, so I'm leaning towards yes
4: Nope

[Hooboy !!]

I clearly specified surviving offspring if you'll reread my post.
Surviving to what point? That was not clear.

[Griff]

1: Not really, though I think its a little kinkyNot as much as you might think. I'd guess most people do it from time to time.

3: Not examining possible consequences is wrong, so I'm leaning towards yes:devil1: Good call.

[Dlx2]

Whether or not we are overpopulated depends upon whether or not we are still capable of producing enough to fulfill the demands of our population. Otherwise, whether there are 80 thousand or 80 billion people on the planet has no ethical meaning whatsoever. If the human population were to dramatically recede for the next million years due to a low fertility rate, the remaining population would be under no ethical obligation to continue the species. They would have every right to live childless until the day that they died and let the descendents of some tribe of mountain gorillas pick up later and continue from where they left off. On overpopulation, humanity is thankfully far from that threshold. We need to be thinking well ahead of ourselves, though, to make sure that we have an enforceable policy with which to deal with it in the event that we ever get that far. With any luck, our population will level off naturally without a need for any such thing.

Overpopulation does more than cause food shortages. It exacerbates ethnic tensions, as it can cause changes in demographics and make groups feel threatened by an increased presence of other groups. It exacerbates other shortages, such as shortages of medicines, raw materials, water, electricity, sanitation, etc. Overpopulation also results in increased environmental destruction, which can potentially result in collapses of fisheries and so forth.

Most importantly, overpopulation results in increased spread of communicable disease as more people come into greater contact (often with less access to medications). Additionally, deforestation and expansion of human settlements results in increased contact with zoonotic diseases; things like Hanta, AIDS, and Ebola are all results of overpopulation.

Overpopulation results in significant detrimental trends that one can't ignore. Furthering the problem by reproducing is a decision one must necessarily defend by demonstrating why they specifically are offering the world some sort of great and wonderful gift by passing on their genes and values.

[Dlx2]

It isn't gall. Your statement is rediculous. It is inclusive of everyone, implying that no one should have children.

No. I don't think you get it. One doesn't have to abstain from reproduction. They simply have to defend their own choice to reproduce against critical inquiry. Someone who is financially capable of raising a child, who is not passing on any significant genetic disorder, and who is bringing said child into a loving family is clearly more capable of defending their decision to reproduce than someone who has financial problems, a familial tendency towards schizophrenia, and chronic alcoholism.

[Griff]

Point being, the world doesn't need anymore bloodsucking social parasites. Instead of taking away a perfectly good welfare system, make it clear to those living on it that, if they willingly reproduce, the government is going to assume that they're perfectly capable of raising the kids all on their own, and just keep the doors of child services open because there are plenty of fags and dykes out there who'd be perfectly willing to bring the kid up themselves. It's cheaper to pay for a couple of abortions here and there than to pay for the welfare of whole lineages of people who don't have the ability to amount to shit.

Now, back on the subject of homosexuality, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether or not gays and lesbians have sex. And, really, the fact is they're not going to go out and have a billion fucking kids or stop having sex for the rest of their lives just because you gave them some lecture on "futile sex." They're not going to convert to heterosexuality just because you suggested it. Pull your head out of the ass of Rush Limbaugh or whomever it is you fucking listen to, conservatives, and take a long look around. This is the real world. Homosexuality isn't going to be made to go away. You're not going to rationalize it out of existence. No amount of bullshit armchair sociology is going to alter the realities of the material world. Keeping gays and lesbians from getting married isn't going to keep them from having sex, and it isn't even going to keep us from having relationships. Having low self-confidence in their ability to have a successful relationship might increase their chances of getting sexual satisfaction from clubs and other unsanitary venues, but it isn't going to make a gay man any less a gay man or a lesbian any less a lesbian.

[Dlx2]

Essentially, bingo.

[Hooboy !!]

<snip> Homosexuality isn't going to be made to go away. <snip>
Strawman.

I simply do not care if homosexuals have sex. Have all the futile sex you want. It don't matter to me. At all. I am opposed to gay marriage, because it does not serve society more than, equal to, or even close to how heterosexual marriage does. Or polygamous marriage would, or other kinds of marriages would. On the totem pole of state sanctioned family organizations, gay marriage would be right there near the bottom, just above first cousins marrying.

[Griff]

Heterosexual marriages that produce nothing but losers do society a disservice, but two married, affluent, homosexual men can do a great deal of service to society. Hell, two married, homosexual men adopting one of those would-be losers and raising him up to be an affluent, literate, contributing member of society have done a great deal more service to society than I'd guess you have the balls to do. We have the same degree of choice as whether to adopt as you have to reproduce, whether you'll accept it or not. We have the same rights as yourself, whether or not annoying people like you choose to keep your jack-booted foot on them. If you don't like it, go to Hell, and take your litter with you.

[Smullyan-esque]

I simply do not care if homosexuals have sex. Have all the futile sex you want. It don't matter to me. At all. I am opposed to gay marriage, because it does not serve society more than, equal to, or even close to how heterosexual marriage does. Or polygamous marriage would, or other kinds of marriages would. On the totem pole of state sanctioned family organizations, gay marriage would be right there near the bottom, just above first cousins marrying.

How does heterosexual marriage "serve society"? Is it by the production of new citizens? Is it by the creation of wealth? Is it by providing a stable environment for child-rearing? Is it by sanctioning and organizing the potentially destabilizing sexual urge?

Can you think of ANY way that heterosexual marriage serves society that: 1) is unique to heterosexual marriage, and 2) is necessary for a heterosexual marriage to be considered legitimate?

[verv2]

No. I don't think you get it. One doesn't have to abstain from reproduction. They simply have to defend their own choice to reproduce against critical inquiry. Someone who is financially capable of raising a child, who is not passing on any significant genetic disorder, and who is bringing said child into a loving family is clearly more capable of defending their decision to reproduce than someone who has financial problems, a familial tendency towards schizophrenia, and chronic alcoholism.

So now you are entering a totally different topic. The only debate we are having here is whether or not sex is used for procreation. We aren't debating about who should choose to procreate and under what terms.

Do people have sex in order to get pregnant, yes, it's as simple as that.

And no one should have to defend themselves for choosing to have a baby, just as no one should have to defend themselves for choosing not to.

[Hooboy !!]

How does heterosexual marriage "serve society"?
I have explained this at length already.

[Dr Rick]

I have explained this at length already....with arbitrary and post hoc rationalizations that have been refuted at length, already

Not that Hooboy !! hasn't tried real hard; it must take a lot of mental gyrations to come-up with a claim that incorporates the term "futile sex". :grin:

[Alexander Hamilton]

Strawman.

I simply do not care if homosexuals have sex. Have all the futile sex you want. It don't matter to me. At all. I am opposed to gay marriage, because it does not serve society more than, equal to, or even close to how heterosexual marriage does. Or polygamous marriage would, or other kinds of marriages would. On the totem pole of state sanctioned family organizations, gay marriage would be right there near the bottom, just above first cousins marrying.

What about a heterosexual marriage that involves no children being born? Or Britney Spears's ten second marriage? Or marriages between senior citizens? Or all those marriages that end in divorce? Or couples who choose to adopt instead? What is their service to society?

._.; ...>_>...

[Smullyan-esque]

I have explained this at length already.

It would benefit you to read more than the first sentence of a post. Otherwise you might appear to be an idiot. I'm sure you don't want to give people that impression.

None of your explanations have addressed the question I asked at the end of my post. As an exercise for you to develop the skills you need, please go back and read the whole thing.

[Hooboy !!]

...with arbitrary and post hoc rationalizations that have been refuted at length, already
In your dreams bud.

[Hooboy !!]

It would benefit you to read more than the first sentence of a post. Otherwise you might appear to be an idiot. I'm sure you don't want to give people that impression.
:rolleyes:

None of your explanations have addressed the question I asked at the end of my post. As an exercise for you to develop the skills you need, please go back and read the whole thing.
Yes, they do, with the possible exception of this question, which is interesting...

2) is necessary for a heterosexual marriage to be considered legitimate?
The operative word here is "necessary", which leads us to conclude that what you meant was "Is the production of children required to legitimize the value of a heterosexual marriage?"

I have also addressed this question. Not sure if it was in this thread or not. So, in brief... No. There is nothing that is required. The assumption is adequate.

[Dlx2]

So now you are entering a totally different topic. The only debate we are having here is whether or not sex is used for procreation. We aren't debating about who should choose to procreate and under what terms.

Do people have sex in order to get pregnant, yes, it's as simple as that.

And no one should have to defend themselves for choosing to have a baby, just as no one should have to defend themselves for choosing not to.

No, you seem to be missing the point. It is not philosophically sound to equivocate sex for pleasure and sex for reproduction. They have different goals and use different means to achieve those goals. Trying to pigeonhole all sex into "sex for reproduction" is not philosophically sound.

And YES, people SHOULD have to defend their choice to have a child. Having a child is not a victimless crime. It is explicitly unethical to have a child that one cannot take care of.

[verv2]

No, you seem to be missing the point. It is not philosophically sound to equivocate sex for pleasure and sex for reproduction. They have different goals and use different means to achieve those goals. Trying to pigeonhole all sex into "sex for reproduction" is not philosophically sound.

And YES, people SHOULD have to defend their choice to have a child. Having a child is not a victimless crime. It is explicitly unethical to have a child that one cannot take care of.

When did having a child become a crime? I'll have to check the legislative updates..... but, I'm pretty sure it's not illegal.
And again, we aren't talking about whether or not someone will make a good parent, we are simply talking about whether or not sex is used for procreation.

You obviously haven't read my posts, because I never said anything about equivocating sex for pleasure with sex for reproduction. I simply said that sex is used for both.

[Dlx2]

When did having a child become a crime? I'll have to check the legislative updates..... but, I'm pretty sure it's not illegal.

Having a child one cannot take care of is indeed a crime, hence laws pertaining to criminal neglect. However, the criminal nature of such an action is not the issue here. We're talking about the ethical considerations of having a child when one cannot provide for that child and when having that child will produce additional burdens that cannot be justified by merit of the child's existence.

And again, we aren't talking about whether or not someone will make a good parent, we are simply talking about whether or not sex is used for procreation.

Whether sex can be used for procreation is really irrelevant to the statement at hand. The question is whether one must defend their choice to have sex when procreation is taken out of the picture. Procreation is obviously not sufficient justification for sex, because we prohibit rape and we consider deadbeat fathers as exhibiting a paucity of ethical consideration. Procreation is obviously also not necessary for sex, as plenty of hetero couples have sex without any intention of procreating. Thus, procreation fails both possible requirements for being relevant to the question of sex, as it is neither sufficient to justify sex, nor is it necessary to justify sex. Consent, however, is BOTH sufficient and necessary to justify sex, and is therefore quite relevant. Heterosexual vaginal intercourse may be sufficient and necessary to procreate, but we've already established that procreation is neither sufficient nor necessary to justify sex. Heterosexual vaginal intercourse is NEITHER sufficient nor necessary to obtain consent, and therefore is neither sufficient nor necessary to justify sex.

While the same act can be used to produce either outcome (sex for pleasure or sex for procreation) the factors sufficient or necessary to produce and justify these fundamentally different outcomes are also fundamentally different. Thus, your comments on sex being used for both is completely irrelevant and can be discarded out of hand. Additionally, because sex for pleasure has no detrimental effects on other individuals, the ONLY factor with any importance is the sufficient and necessary factor of consent. However, because procreation DOES have other detrimental effects, while heterosexual vaginal intercourse may be necessary, it is not sufficient to justify procreation. Consent is also necessary, as without consent, the act of procreation is rape. The ability to raise the child in a healthy environment is ALSO necessary, as without that ability the act of procreation is neglect or abuse. Thus, we see the following:

Consent -> Ethical sex for pleasure
Consent + Hetero vaginal intercourse + ability to raise child -> Ethical sex for procreation

If anything, one should consider sex for procreation a subset of sex for pleasure, because it has the same necessary condition of consent AS WELL AS other necessary conditions.

You obviously haven't read my posts, because I never said anything about equivocating sex for pleasure with sex for reproduction. I simply said that sex is used for both.

And I'm simply saying that your statement is utterly irrelevant.

[Griff]

In your dreams bud.Hooboy, you are completely defeated on this issue. It's not our fault you don't have the sense to realize it. Your credibility is wearing evermore thin.

[Dlx2]

Hooboy, you are completely defeated on this issue. It's not our fault you don't have the sense to realize it. Your credibility is wearing evermore thin.

Hooboy is at least consistent. I'm sure he also goes out to a nice dinner at a fancy restaurant only when he wants to take a shit.

[Perm]

When did having a child become a crime? I'll have to check the legislative updates..... but, I'm pretty sure it's not illegal.

He was referring to the ethical considerations.. not the legal. Although you've made a very definitive statement about yourself that the ethical considerations of having a child apparently have never been considered.

[verv2]

Having a child one cannot take care of is indeed a crime, hence laws pertaining to criminal neglect. However, the criminal nature of such an action is not the issue here. We're talking about the ethical considerations of having a child when one cannot provide for that child and when having that child will produce additional burdens that cannot be justified by merit of the child's existence.



Whether sex can be used for procreation is really irrelevant to the statement at hand. The question is whether one must defend their choice to have sex when procreation is taken out of the picture. Procreation is obviously not sufficient justification for sex, because we prohibit rape and we consider deadbeat fathers as exhibiting a paucity of ethical consideration. Procreation is obviously also not necessary for sex, as plenty of hetero couples have sex without any intention of procreating. Thus, procreation fails both possible requirements for being relevant to the question of sex, as it is neither sufficient to justify sex, nor is it necessary to justify sex. Consent, however, is BOTH sufficient and necessary to justify sex, and is therefore quite relevant. Heterosexual vaginal intercourse may be sufficient and necessary to procreate, but we've already established that procreation is neither sufficient nor necessary to justify sex. Heterosexual vaginal intercourse is NEITHER sufficient nor necessary to obtain consent, and therefore is neither sufficient nor necessary to justify sex.

While the same act can be used to produce either outcome (sex for pleasure or sex for procreation) the factors sufficient or necessary to produce and justify these fundamentally different outcomes are also fundamentally different. Thus, your comments on sex being used for both is completely irrelevant and can be discarded out of hand. Additionally, because sex for pleasure has no detrimental effects on other individuals, the ONLY factor with any importance is the sufficient and necessary factor of consent. However, because procreation DOES have other detrimental effects, while heterosexual vaginal intercourse may be necessary, it is not sufficient to justify procreation. Consent is also necessary, as without consent, the act of procreation is rape. The ability to raise the child in a healthy environment is ALSO necessary, as without that ability the act of procreation is neglect or abuse. Thus, we see the following:

Consent -> Ethical sex for pleasure
Consent + Hetero vaginal intercourse + ability to raise child -> Ethical sex for procreation

If anything, one should consider sex for procreation a subset of sex for pleasure, because it has the same necessary condition of consent AS WELL AS other necessary conditions.

well we are obviously not understanding what each other is attempting to communicate, because we apparently feel the same way about everything. I agree with everything you've said here.

The thing is, I'm not trying to make an arguement for procreation being the reason for sex. All I have been trying to communicate, is that if someone is arguing this topic with someone who is pea-brained enough to state that homosexual sex is wrong because it isn't natural (meaning they believe procreation is the natural reason for sex), that I would not argue with them by saying that sex has nothing to do with procreation. If I used that as the basis for my arguement, then I would not accomplish anything in the arguement with someone who truly believes this. We aren't talking about debating this topic with reasonable people, and to ignore that sex is used for procreation only makes you look like any idiot to them, because people do have sex in order to procreate, maybe not most of the time, but when they weant to make a baby they do.

And because this is the only idea that I'm discussing, everything else is irrelevant to my discussion. Those issue all have importance, but that is not what I'm discussing.

[Hooboy !!]

Hooboy, you are completely defeated on this issue. It's not our fault you don't have the sense to realize it. Your credibility is wearing evermore thin.
Wishful thinking. I got news for you. I, and most Americans, are not willing to be bullied into treating homosexuals with kid gloves and pandering to them. These kinds of declarations of victory are evidence of your failure. Not mine.

[Monad]

What about a heterosexual marriage that involves no children being born? Or Britney Spears's ten second marriage? Or marriages between senior citizens? Or all those marriages that end in divorce? Or couples who choose to adopt instead? What is their service to society?

._.; ...>_>...

Surely most people (at least in western societies) marry for love primarily? Things like economic prospects, children etc come in at some point but they are not usually the primary goal at the time. "Duty to society" (whatever that is) if it comes into it at all is not a priority for most people (more so in some cultures of course). This isn't really about sex, it's about commited love and a decision to share a life with someone you care for deeply. Their gender is irrelevent.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Surely most people (at least in western societies) marry for love primarily? Things like economic prospects, children etc come in at some point but they are not usually the primary goal at the time. "Duty to society" (whatever that is) if it comes into it at all is not a priority for most people (more so in some cultures of course). This isn't really about sex, it's about commited love and a decision to share a life with someone you care for deeply. Their gender is irrelevent.

Actually, this topic is about gay sex. Yet we're talking about gay marriage. Again. O: Not that I mind.

I prefer not to get too touchy-feely when discussing a political issue, because you can't legislate morality. This isn't about allowing anyone who loves anyone to marry that special somebody, just like abortion isn't about whether a fetus is "alive" or "human". It is about discrimination based on gender. The government can say, "If you don't produce a child, you can't get married," but thay can't say, "You can get married because you are a man and a woman, even though you won't have kids because you prefer raising puppies. You homos can't because you can't produce children, despite the fact that both of you are women and plan on using a sperm donor. "

Hooboy, you still haven't answered my question. You say that a heterosexual marriage does more service to society than a homosexual one because children are a likely possibility...but...

What about a heterosexual marriage that involves no children being born? Or Britney Spears's ten second marriage? Or marriages between senior citizens? Or all those marriages that end in divorce? Or couples who choose to adopt instead? What is their service to society?

._.; ...>_>...

...If all these people can get married, why can't gays? Don't give me that "but there is NO possibility that gays can create children" crap. Lesbians CAN get pregnant and produce children, and I'm sure it's safe to say that there would be more childless straight couples than the total number of gay couples even if gay marriage was legalized. If you're so worried about people getting the benifits of marriage without producing offspring, then why aren't you up in arms over childless straight couples? You would deny a gay couple who would love to adopt a child, use a sperm donor, or use a surrogate mother to get children the right to marry, but the growing amount of heterosexual marriages that involve no children is a-okay?

[verv2]

He was referring to the ethical considerations.. not the legal. Although you've made a very definitive statement about yourself that the ethical considerations of having a child apparently have never been considered.

I am aware of what he was saying. I was simply saying that those topics are for another thread or another discussion. The topic of parenting ethics has nothing to do with whether or not the purpose of sex is for procreation. We are discussing whether or not homosexual sex is immoral because it doesn't lead to procreation, we're not talking about who should procreate. So I have made no definitive statements about anyone. The statement I was referring to was

Having a child is not a victimless crime.

This statement specifically calls having a child a crime. It is not unreasonable to point out that it is not a crime. There are many things that people do that are unethical. Because something is unethical does not mean it is criminal.

[EarlOfLade]

Wishful thinking. I got news for you. I, and most Americans, are not willing to be bullied into treating homosexuals with kid gloves and pandering to them. These kinds of declarations of victory are evidence of your failure. Not mine.

As I've said before, the gays are the new jews and the new blacks.

If you had been alive and an adult in nazi Germany, you would have applied to GESTAPO or SS. You are just the type of people they loved.

[Angrillori]

Wishful thinking. I got news for you. I, and most Americans, are not willing to be bullied into treating homosexuals with kid gloves and pandering to them. These kinds of declarations of victory are evidence of your failure. Not mine.

Why do I have images of Monty Python's Black Knight from The Holy Grail

ARTHUR: Eh. You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes, I have.
ARTHUR: Look!
BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
[kick]
ARTHUR: Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken!
[kick]
Chickennn!
ARTHUR: Look, I'll have your leg.
[kick]
Right!
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: Right. I'll do you for that!
ARTHUR: You'll what?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come here!
ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a looney.
BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's last leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

[Hooboy !!]

As I've said before, the gays are the new jews and the new blacks.
Cry me a river. Homosexuals are not being discriminated against. They have a persecution complex and want the rest of the country to jump through hoops to make them feel better.

[Griff]

Cry me a river. Homosexuals are not being discriminated against. They have a persecution complex and want the rest of the country to jump through hoops to make them feel better.Cry me a river. Marriage isn't being threatened. You're just afraid of change and want the country to jump through hoops to appease your insecurities.

[Hooboy !!]

Marriage isn't being threatened.
I never said it was.

You're just afraid of change and want the country to jump through hoops to appease your insecurities.
Pound that straw! You have failed to provide a single compelling argument that shows how gay marriage serves society, enough anyway to justify altering the status quo. There are larger, more pressing social problems in this world today, like teen pregancy, children born to single mothers, divorce rates, care for the elderly, etc. that need to be tackled. Your pissing and moaning about not being allowed to get married, is a distraction from these other, more important problems. Nobody cares if you are in "love". Nobody cares if I in love either. Get over it.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Cry me a river. Marriage isn't being threatened. You're just afraid of change and want the country to jump through hoops to appease your insecurities.

Naaaw. Hooboy isn't prejudiced. He's just incorrect.

He would be in favor of a changing marriage so that couples could only marry once they produce a child; when the child came of age and left the house, the marriage would be terminated. (I know because I asked.)

He thinks that marriage is to support raising a family and producing children, and that allowing homosexual's to marry would be pointless because they aren't useful to society by producing children.

The question that needs anwering is this: Until marriage is a privilege only for those who are producing and raising their own biological children, is there a good reason to deny a small segment of the population the same privilege which millions of undeserving, non-child producing heterosexuals have?

So, Hooboy, what's the answer? Why should so many childless heterosexuals get the benifits, while homosexuals, a much smaller number, who may infact be raising children, are denied these benifits?

[Dlx2]

I never said it was.


Pound that straw! You have failed to provide a single compelling argument that shows how gay marriage serves society, enough anyway to justify altering the status quo. There are larger, more pressing social problems in this world today, like teen pregancy, children born to single mothers, divorce rates, care for the elderly, etc. that need to be tackled. Your pissing and moaning about not being allowed to get married, is a distraction from these other, more important problems. Nobody cares if you are in "love". Nobody cares if I in love either. Get over it.

See, granting gays the right to marry would ALSO make gay marriage cease to be a distraction.

Get over it.

[Griff]

Get over it.Not before I'm a cold, dead corpse.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Gawd, guys, don't get so emotional. I'm supposed to be the immature one here. D: Chill. Just chill out.

And we're still talking about gay marriage. XP

You know, I bet if we talked about this over a good gay porn video, we'd be a lot more relaxed. *wink wink nudge nudge*

[Griff]

Chill. Just chill out.No.

[Alexander Hamilton]

No.

*Brandishes large ice cubes threateningly*

I'm just trying to lighten the mood. :O Hooboy isn't one of them crazy homophobes who think gay people are agents of Satan, sent to seduce their children into becoming NAMBLA members and interior decorators. He has a reason, even if it isn't a good one.

Of course, if he doesn’t have a good response to my question, feel free to express your righteous indignation. He didn't answer it before. >_>

Hooboy !! Answer my question!

[Griff]

Hooboy isn't one of them crazy homophobes who think gay people are agents of SatanNo, he's just a conservative socialist.

[Hooboy !!]

See, granting gays the right to marry would ALSO make gay marriage cease to be a distraction.
So, in other words, cave into the demands of what amounts to terrorists? No thanks.

[Hooboy !!]

Hooboy !! Answer my question!
I believe I have BTW. The assumption that a heterosexual couple marrying will produce children is pretty safe one, inspite of the exceptions that exist. I believe I also explained how the costs (both real and social) associated with verifying a couple is fertile is not worth it. I have also explained how families work beyond the first generation and how grand parents can also participate in child rearing. So, preserving the family structure still makes sense, even after children are grown and moved on to raising their own children.

[Griff]

So, in other words, cave into the demands of what amounts to terrorists?You betcha.

No thanks.Too bad.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I believe I have BTW. The assumption that a heterosexual couple marrying will produce children is pretty safe one, inspite of the exceptions that exist. I believe I also explained how the costs (both real and social) associated with verifying a couple is fertile is not worth it. I have also explained how families work beyond the first generation and how grand parents can also participate in child rearing. So, preserving the family structure still makes sense, even after children are grown and moved on to raising their own children.

"Is not worth it"? The amount of married couples who are married without bearing children is increasing, and is far more threatening to the traditional marriage than a few gay people. Besides, fertility does not guarantee children. CHILDREN guarantee children. Don't bother with a fertility test. Wait until they have a kid, THEN let them get married. That's what marriage is for, correct? Raising children, making a stable family structure for the child?

Grandparents can help raise children? Give me a break. Friends can help raise children. Neighbors can help raise children. Single people can assist in raising children. Gay people help raise (or do raise) children. Besides, they don't have any kids in the house, living with them. Do they really need to stay married? Marriage of grandparents isn't going to give any benifits to the children. They can just cohabitate like all childless couples should. Or if I'm raised by two homosexuals, and I get married and have kids, do they get to get married so thay can help raise the children? They may not be reproducing, but they can participate in child rearing, right? Isn't wonderful how families work through each generation?

I'm amazed you don't think homosexuals can be part of a family structure and help raise children. Single parents raise kids, uncles raise kids...wasn't the divorce rate in the U. S. something like 50%? Step parents raise kids and people adopt kids. Homosexual couples are already raising children, so why not let them get married ot keep THEIR family structure stabilized? All those straight people aren't using their benifits to help raise the next generation.

Make up your mind. Is marriage for child rearing? If so, is it only for raising your own, biologiocal child? If so, why allow any marraige that doesn't involve a man, his wife, and his biological children? If not, why keep homosexuals from marrying?

Give me one good reason why we should allow anyone not raising their own biological child to be married.

[Hooboy !!]

"Is not worth it"? The amount of married couples who are married without bearing children is increasing, and is far more threatening to the traditional marriage than a few gay people.
How about some statistics? I would say divorce is a greater problem. Gay marriage is not a threat to traditional marriage BTW.

Grandparents can help raise children?
Can and are motivated to do so. Biological grandparents have a genetic stake in their grandchildren.

[Dlx2]

So, in other words, cave into the demands of what amounts to terrorists? No thanks.

Saying, "hey guys, can we have the same rights you guys have? please?" is not terrorism. It's not like Al-Gayda has threatened to drop the buttsex bomb on New York if heterosexuals everywhere don't realize the errors of their ways and submit to good fashion sense.

You have NOTHING to lose by giving gays the right to marry. I have NOTHING to lose by giving gays the right to marry. You seem intelligent enough. You supposedly don't hate gays, and you supposedly don't choose your stance based on outdated religious ideology. You're not the kind of guy who eats imported beluga caviar just to take a shit. So I really don't understand why you're not willing to offer people a right that takes nothing away from you whatsoever.

I am wondering if this is simply an issue of stubbornness, and you're simply unwilling to accept this right solely because the people campaigning for it as so vehement about it. Your rhetoric suggests to me that this is indeed a matter of pride for you, rather than a matter of actual issues. If this is indeed the case, you should try to take into account the fact that, while this is a matter of pride for you, this is a much more serious matter for folks like Griff who do not want to afford the state the right to invalidate his relationship solely on the basis of the gender of his partner. You and I do not have to worry about this; you have been allowed to formalize your relationship as you see fit, and I have the right to formalize my relationship with my girlfriend if/when she and I see fit. I probably would not choose to marry the woman that you have married. You probably would not chooose to marry the woman that I have chosen to have a serious relationship with. If you can tolerate the fact that I could marry my girlfriend, even if you wouldn't personally choose to marry her, I don't see how you can not tolerate Griff's right to marry his significant other even if you would not personally choose to marry him. You're being an obstinant hypocrite.

[Dlx2]

I would say divorce is a greater problem.

What is it about divorce that bothers you? I don't find the realization that "oh crap, I thought this person was right for me, but I guess I made a mistake" to be worth consideration as a "major social problem" unless this realization comes after the couple has chosen to have children, and are not mature enough to maintain enough decency to maintain a semblance of a loving environment for the children to grow up in.

It should also be pointed out that right now, divorce is ENTIRELY a heterosexual phenomenon. The fact that 60-some percent of heterosexual marriages are currently ending in divorces should suggest that heterosexuals are perhaps less competant at making big choices such as who to marry than you'd like to believe.

[Alexander Hamilton]

How about some statistics? I would say divorce is a greater problem. Gay marriage is not a threat to traditional marriage BTW.


I wasn’t able to find many good statistics, but I thought it was pretty obvious that more couples were going without kids. Women now have more in mind than raising offspring.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0037/twps0037.html


http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/USA.htm
Clearly, A horrifying number of homosexual couples will be abusing marriage by not producing children in gay marriage is legalized!

Yes it is. Traditional marriage is one man, on woman, and a bunch of biological children. Just like adoption, gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage because it wrongfully gives benefits to those who aren’t going to serve their species by producing more babies.


Can and are motivated to do so. Biological grandparents have a genetic stake in their grandchildren.
...Because clearly nonbiological parents and grandparents could really care less about what happens to their family members. :rolleyes: I could only imagine how my grandparents would have treated me if I had not been biologically related! They might have ignored me even more!

Most grandparents don’t live with their children and grandchildren; I’m sure they’ve had enough of that in their lifetime. It is more likely they’re enjoying retirement and freedom, seeing they’re children and grandchildren sometimes. They may help raise the kids a little, but seriously, do they need a marriage to perform that? Single parents raise kids that they have to take care of 24/7 without marriage, for goodness sake. The kids have married parents, why the hell would they need married grandparents?

Hooboy, would support this?:
People can only get married once the woman has delivered the baby (which is of course the child of the man she intends to marry). They can keep their marriage throughout there lives, because their marriage will clearly be highly beneficial to their grandchildren, because they see each other constantly, and all those benefits really help the grandparents take care of them. -_-

You cannot marry without having produced a child.
You cannot get married after adopting a child, get married to someone with children from another marriage, or get married without a kid.
No sperm donors.

There. I modified the ideal marriage for you. Do you like it, Hooboy? Keeping those crazy people from adopting will certainly keep the family stable. Thank god those infertile men aren’t raising children that are not theirs! Clearly, they would not care about their child if their wife used a sperm donor.

[Griff]

And, again, populations take care of themselves. The circumstances created by low population naturally create an incentive for replenishment, including heightened privacy, increased leisure, etcetera. The devil beast of "self-gratification," Hooboy, did a wonderful job of sustaining us for millions of years. Nature will protect us from overcrowding, also, if we don't go out of our way to fight it. Human society must be allowed to self-stabilize, not forced to a pace that could send them marching over the edge of a cliff.

[Angrillori]

You're being an obstinant hypocrite.
:)

This just in, water is wet. More at 11:00.

[EarlOfLade]

Cry me a river. Homosexuals are not being discriminated against. They have a persecution complex and want the rest of the country to jump through hoops to make them feel better.

Really/

I challenge you to come and visit me in Orlando and I'll introduce you to some of my gay friends and they can set you straight, so to speak...

I can see that you have no clue whatsoever. Not surprising.

[Hooboy !!]

<snip>
Resorting to questioning my motives and then insulting me now?

[Hooboy !!]

Really/

I challenge you to come and visit me in Orlando and I'll introduce you to some of my gay friends and they can set you straight, so to speak...

I can see that you have no clue whatsoever. Not surprising.
Sounds like a threat.

[Hooboy !!]

I wasn’t able to find many good statistics, but I thought it was pretty obvious that more couples were going without kids.
In other words... you are just making shit up as you go.

Yes it is. Traditional marriage is one man, on woman, and a bunch of biological children. Just like adoption, gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage because it wrongfully gives benefits to those who aren’t going to serve their species by producing more babies.
Adoption has been a part of human cultures for thousands of years. Explain how adoption is a threat to the traditional marriage.

Gay marriage is not a "threat" to traditional marriage. Gay marriage is alternative form of civil union to traditional marriage. It has absolutely nothing to do with traditional marriage.

[Hooboy !!]

What is it about divorce that bothers you? I don't find the realization that "oh crap, I thought this person was right for me, but I guess I made a mistake" to be worth consideration as a "major social problem" unless this realization comes after the couple has chosen to have children, and are not mature enough to maintain enough decency to maintain a semblance of a loving environment for the children to grow up in.

It should also be pointed out that right now, divorce is ENTIRELY a heterosexual phenomenon. The fact that 60-some percent of heterosexual marriages are currently ending in divorces should suggest that heterosexuals are perhaps less competant at making big choices such as who to marry than you'd like to believe.
Divorce is a threat to traditional marriage, because traditional marriage vows were intended to form a bond that would not be broken. Ever. Traditional marriage is not about staying together while it is convenient. It is not about staying together while things are all hunky dory and everyone is perfectly happy. Traditional marriage is not about deciding to get married on a lark. It is supposed to be one of, if not the, most important decision that a person will ever make in their life. The consequences of this decision are supposed to affect you for the rest of your life.

Divorce is one of way of simply avoiding the consequences of ones actions. It is a form of irresponsibility. It is how bad families get built. If people were to actually spend the time and energy required to make a good decision about who they marry... If they were to actually take the time and energy required to make a marriage work, even through the difficult periods that every marriage experiences... If people were willing to endure a little pain and suffering until whatever problem that is being experienced is worked out, instead of running for the hills at the first sign of tribulation... There would be fewer divorces.

[Dlx2]

Resorting to questioning my motives and then insulting me now?

Well, since the argument that you make is contrived and hardly waterproof, I have a right to question why you're holding so fast against granting civil rights that do nothing to harm you or your relationship. The arguments you have made will not convince anyone who doesn't already want to be convinced. So, I have to assume that you already want to be convinced that gays should be denied marital rights. Either you're driven by religious dogma (which you claim is not the issue) or it's a matter of obstinance. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by not calling you a liar and a homophobic dogmatist.

[Dlx2]

Divorce is a threat to traditional marriage, because traditional marriage vows were intended to form a bond that would not be broken. Ever. Traditional marriage is not about staying together while it is convenient. It is not about staying together while things are all hunky dory and everyone is perfectly happy. Traditional marriage is not about deciding to get married on a lark. It is supposed to be one of, if not the, most important decision that a person will ever make in their life. The consequences of this decision are supposed to affect you for the rest of your life.

Divorce is one of way of simply avoiding the consequences of ones actions. It is a form of irresponsibility. It is how bad families get built. If people were to actually spend the time and energy required to make a good decision about who they marry... If they were to actually take the time and energy required to make a marriage work, even through the difficult periods that every marriage experiences... If people were willing to endure a little pain and suffering until whatever problem that is being experienced is worked out, instead of running for the hills at the first sign of tribulation... There would be fewer divorces.

Oh really. Because the way they dealt with marital strife before divorce was any better. The dealt with it by killing their spouses, by terrorizing their households, or by drowning the problems in liquor, or by taking jobs which required lots and lots of travelling. Yeah, really humane.

As for "traditional" marriage, if we were talking "traditional" marriage, my girlfriend would not be allowed to marry me, because her marriage would have been arranged for political gain by her parents. Traditional marriage was no different from the sale of cattle.

I like the idea that people can choose who they will marry, rather than have this decided by someone who has different values than I do. I like the idea that, if I realize that I've made the wrong decision, I don't have to live the rest of my life with that decision so long as I and my significant other are the only ones suffering from that decision.

But keep in mind that your goddamned sacred "traditional marriage" was not about commitment. It was about selling a young, virginal girl to an older man (in exchange for political favors) so she could bear him an heir. That's your goddamned traditional marriage. Obviously you've never dealt with that. My girlfriend's parents have tried to push her into a "traditional" marriage for years, and her relationship with me is an affront to the "traditional" marriage her parents have envisioned for her because she chose me and because I offer them no political or financial clout in exchange for their daughter. So please, get over your goddamned love affair with "traditional" marriage. Your marriage is not traditional. If I marry my girlfriend, that marriage will not be traditional. And no, Griff's marriage won't be traditional, either, but in that regard he won't differ from you or me.

[Dr Rick]

Resorting to questioning my motives and then insulting me now?Not that such things are right, but when you offer a series of disjointed claims leading to a conclusion that procreation is the purpose of masturbation while equating gay-marriage advocates to terrorists, there's really not all that much left to discuss.

[Dlx2]

I'm strongly considering taking the traditional marriage subject to another thread, as this is a touchy subject for me and I don't want to feel tempted to follow this up within this thread and in doing so distract from the subject at hand here. Hooboy, if you're interested in discussing this, let me know, because I'll make that thread pronto.

[Griff]

Damn it, Hooboy. Call us a bunch of bleeding hearts, and walk off in a huff, already. We don't want to suffur and toil for the collective. We don't want to "endure for the greater good." Like communism, it just doesn't work.

[Hooboy !!]

when you offer a series of disjointed claims leading to a conclusion that procreation is the purpose of masturbation
Not what I said. Classic example of you, once again, misrepresenting what I wrote. At least you are consistent.

Not that such things are right,..
But, since it is me, its alright then. Right?

[Hooboy !!]

Well, since the argument that you make is contrived and hardly waterproof, I have a right to question why you're holding so fast against granting civil rights that do nothing to harm you or your relationship. The arguments you have made will not convince anyone who doesn't already want to be convinced. So, I have to assume that you already want to be convinced that gays should be denied marital rights. Either you're driven by religious dogma (which you claim is not the issue) or it's a matter of obstinance. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by not calling you a liar and a homophobic dogmatist.
Attempting to rationalize your logical fallacy? Funny. Predictable. But, still funny.

[Hooboy !!]

But keep in mind that your goddamned sacred "traditional marriage" was not about commitment. It was about selling a young, virginal girl to an older man (in exchange for political favors) so she could bear him an heir. That's your goddamned traditional marriage.
*yawn*

[Hooboy !!]

Damn it, Hooboy. Call us a bunch of bleeding hearts, and walk off in a huff, already. We don't want to suffur and toil for the collective. We don't want to "endure for the greater good." Like communism, it just doesn't work.
I am not a socialist or a communist. You realise that "bleeding hearts" are most closely associated with the "left" right? And that the left is also most closely assocaited with Socialism, right?

lol

[Dr Rick]

Not what I said. Classic example of you, once again, misrepresenting what I wrote. At least you are consistent.It is you, as you dug your own hole ever deeper, that foolishly offered these desperate rationalizations:Masturbation is still sex.The purpose of sex is procreation.

So, if, as you claim:

P1) The purpose of sex is procreation, and
P2) Masturbation is still sex.

then:

C) The purpose of masturbation is procreation.

This is not misrepresenting anything that you said. On the contrary, it's just a typical example of your ridiculous post hoc rationalizations leading to yet another absurd conclusion that you cannot possibly hope to defend.

Oh well; at least you are consistent.

[Alexander Hamilton]

In other words... you are just making shit up as you go.

Well, I thought it was pretty obvious. I love how you ignored the link I gave you, not to mention most of my post. Here is another one:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060107/news_lz1c07nokids.html



Adoption has been a part of human cultures for thousands of years. Explain how adoption is a threat to the traditional marriage.

Gay marriage is not a "threat" to traditional marriage. Gay marriage is alternative form of civil union to traditional marriage. It has absolutely nothing to do with traditional marriage.
Why do you love traditional marriage so much? Just because a woman's traditional place is in the home doesn' t mean that she has to be a housewife. Just because it is traditional doesn't mean it is good. remember when brides were pretty much property of the father, and had to be "given away" to the husband?

Okay, so you're in favor of a straight couple adopting a child and getting married...but you aren't in favor of a gay couple adopting and getting married just because it isn't "traditional"? Does...not...compute.

Time for a magical QUESTION LIST:

Who is doing more for society: a heterosexual couple that is childless, or a homosexual couple that is raising children?

Who needs marriage benifits more: a childless heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple with children?

Which is better for the child: to live with a homosexual couple with marriage benifits, or to live with a homosexual couple without them?

Is requiring a baby before marriage a good idea? It doesn't require any fancy fertility tests; all they need is the birth certificate as proof-of-baby.

[Hooboy !!]

It is you, as you dug your own hole ever deeper, that foolishly offered these desperate rationalizations:

So, if, as you claim:

P1) The purpose of sex is procreation, and
P2) Masturbation is still sex.

then:

C) The purpose of masturbation is procreation.

This is not misrepresenting anything that you said. On the contrary, it's just a typical example of your ridiculous post hoc rationalizations leading to yet another absurd conclusion that you cannot possibly hope to defend.

Oh well; at least you are consistent.
Because masturbation represents the sum of all that "sex" refers to. :rolleyes:

Please. Stop wasting my time.

[Hooboy !!]

Well, I thought it was pretty obvious. I love how you ignored the link I gave you, not to mention most of my post. Here is another one:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060107/news_lz1c07nokids.html
First of all, I would not consider the trend in the US to be representative of the world. Second, only 18% of women say they have never conceived (up from only 10% 30 years ago, not exactly a "rapid" increase), but does not say anything about whether or not they were married, or if they were homosexual. So basically... you are making shit up.

Why do you love traditional marriage so much? Just because a woman's traditional place is in the home doesn' t mean that she has to be a housewife. Just because it is traditional doesn't mean it is good. remember when brides were pretty much property of the father, and had to be "given away" to the husband?
I am in love with nuclear families. "Traditional" is a bad word, because you are right, it includes some very negative things. I am not trying to defend those things.

Okay, so you're in favor of a straight couple adopting a child and getting married...but you aren't in favor of a gay couple adopting and getting married just because it isn't "traditional"? Does...not...compute.
I have zero problem with a homosexual adopting.

Who is doing more for society: a heterosexual couple that is childless, or a homosexual couple that is raising children?
Raising children is the more important goal.

Who needs marriage benifits more: a childless heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple with children?
Loaded question. The answer is neither. Who needs the benefits is the child.

Which is better for the child: to live with a homosexual couple with marriage benifits, or to live with a homosexual couple without them?
The former.

Is requiring a baby before marriage a good idea? It doesn't require any fancy fertility tests; all they need is the birth certificate as proof-of-baby.
I've already discussed this. It is an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Using your own statistics, 82% of women will conceive a child. I think this rate is much higher for heterosexual women that marry. It is safe to assume that a heterosexual woman that marries will conceive a child. Safe enough to justify foregoing an invasion of privacy.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I've already discussed this. It is an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Using your own statistics, 82% of women will conceive a child. I think this rate is much higher for heterosexual women that marry. It is safe to assume that a heterosexual woman that marries will conceive a child. Safe enough to justify foregoing an invasion of privacy.

So this is all based on an assupmtion? There are REAL homosexual people raising REAL children, but because of their gender, they are just going to have to tough it out, while REAL childless heteroseuxals use their marriage benifits to by big screen TVs? There are children of homosexual couples who could seriously benifit from married parents, but they don't matter?

How is it an unnecessary invasion of privacy? As you said, marriage benifits are for the CHILDREN. In other words, the marriage is for the baby, not the parents, and marriages should not be wasted on people who won't be producing children. Why waste tax cuts on childless couples? If most couples do have children, then it won't even be a big deal. Just wait until the baby is born. No huge invasion of privacy there.

Wait...if requiring a baby before marriage is an invasion of privacy, then wouldn't requiring that the participants in the marriage be male and female be an invasion of privacy too? After all, homosexuals are in the minority. It is safe to assume that any given couple is a heterosexual couple who will produce a child...safe enough to justify foregoing an invasion of privacy, yes?

[Dlx2]

*yawn*

Traditional marriages were arranged marriages. I am with a woman who barely escaped an arranged marriage made for financial purposes. I am aware of what this system does to a woman's right to choose her own life. I am aware of what this system does to a woman's right to serve any purpose in society beyond livestock. I am aware of what this does to traditional gender roles in male-female relationships.

I personally think such arranged marriages are wrong. I think they're as wrong as slavery, because they're essentially sexual and reproductive slavery. Because of this, I think it's perfectly acceptable to make modifications to marriage in order to accomodate modern values of women's rights. As such, I don't hold "traditional" marriage in any sanctity; a marriage is only as sacrosanct as the couple makes it. If you want to defend the unchangeability of marriage, then I want you to defend arranged marriages as ethical. Otherwise, seriously, shut up.

[Dlx2]

Attempting to rationalize your logical fallacy? Funny. Predictable. But, still funny.

No, I'm trying to understand why YOU cling so strongly to YOURS.

[Dr Rick]

Because masturbation represents the sum of all that "sex" refers to. :rolleyes:

By a happy coincidence, it pretty much describes the sum of all that your "argument" is, too.

[Griff]

I am not a socialist or a communist.Like hell. A right-wing collectivist is still a commie. Go back to Soviet Russia, pinko.

[Hooboy !!]

So this is all based on an assupmtion?
All what? Human beings evolved sexuality for the purpose of procreation. Every living thing must have some way of reproducing. This is not an assumption. Heterosexual unions produce children. That is also a fact. Not always, but usually. This is also a fact.

Wait...if requiring a baby before marriage is an invasion of privacy, then wouldn't requiring that the participants in the marriage be male and female be an invasion of privacy too?
No. It is perfectly obvious, usually, that a man is a man, and a woman is a woman. No invasion of privacy is required.

[Hooboy !!]

Like hell. A right-wing collectivist is still a commie. Go back to Soviet Russia, pinko.
First, you clealry have no idea what "left" and "right" mean on the political scale. Second, how in fuck's name do you get that I am a "collectivist" from this disucssion? Either you do not have the first clue what collectivism is (my first guess given my first point) or you are just pulling words out of yer ass to try and yank my chain.

[Hooboy !!]

By a happy coincidence, it pretty much describes the sum of all that your "argument" is, too.
Come on! Why didn't you try to defend that weak ass logic you used? I could have used a good laugh.

[Dr Rick]

Come on! Why didn't you try to defend that weak ass logic you used?Of course I used your "logic", but there's no way anyone can defend it.I could have used a good laugh.
Just try reading one of your own posts.

[Hooboy !!]

Of course I used your "logic", but there's no way anyone can defend it.
Oh, I get it... that was supposed to be a parody. Yea. Too bad all it amounted to was a strawman and a non sequitur.

[Dr Rick]

Oh, I get it... that was supposed to be a parody. Yea. Too bad all it amounted to was a strawman and a non sequitur.That's bound to happen when you offer a series of disjointed claims leading to a conclusion that procreation is the purpose of masturbation "because masturbation represents the sum of all that 'sex' refers to."

And we haven't even gotten to the part where you equate gay-marriage advocates with terrorists. :D

Hooboy !!, you're doing one heckuva job.

[Alexander Hamilton]

All what? Human beings evolved sexuality for the purpose of procreation. Every living thing must have some way of reproducing. This is not an assumption. Heterosexual unions produce children. That is also a fact. Not always, but usually. This is also a fact.

You're assuming that ALL heterosexuals automatically deserve benifits because they will raise children and ALL homosexual couples don't deserve them because they don't raise children. It's a fact that you believe in arbitrarily giving out marriages to any heterosexual couples that ask, but denying homosexuals who are pretty much sterile heterosexual couples the right to gain benifits to better take care of their own children.

No. It is perfectly obvious, usually, that a man is a man, and a woman is a woman. No invasion of privacy is required.
...unlike fertility/intention to have children, which is NOT perfectly obvious.
And a baby is a baby. A baby is perfectly obvious, just as gender is. Where is the "invasion of privacy"? It's a freaking baby!

[Hooboy !!]

That's bound to happen when you...
You're blaming me for your fallacious reasoning? LOL

Spoken like a true Socialist. It couldn't possibly be your fault. :rolleyes:

[Hooboy !!]

You're assuming that ALL heterosexuals automatically deserve benifits
No. Just the ones that get married.

And a baby is a baby. A baby is perfectly obvious, just as gender is. Where is the "invasion of privacy"? It's a freaking baby!
Waiting until after a baby is born is a bad idea BTW, which I am not going to go into. If you have the first clue about what marriage is, then why would be perfectly obvious.

[Griff]

First, you clealry have no idea what "left" and "right" mean on the political scale.On the contrary, I'm fairly politically literate.

Second, how in fuck's name do you get that I am a "collectivist" from this disucssion?You are, though. Collectivism stresses the import of the collective good of society over the liberty and dignity of the individual. You hold sex or any relationship that doesn't directly serve society in the manner that you feel it should thoroughly in contempt. You speak in alarmist tones about us becoming a culture of "self-gratification," and you implore us to "take responsibility" and "endure pain" for the "greater good." You're a commie, and I don't mean any idealistic Marxist-Leninist. You don't even have the saving grace of being a revolutionary.

Go ahead. Tell us how important the Fatherland is. Tell us about the importance of constraining individual desires for the Republic. Show us how much contempt you have for such "unproductive" things as love and personal fulfillment. You'd murder humanity if you thought it would save homo sapiens sapiens because you don't even know what humanity is. The Christ-stoners are better company. They're easier to reason with. You just go back to Russia or wherever the hell you came from.

[Smullyan-esque]

Waiting until after a baby is born is a bad idea BTW, which I am not going to go into. If you have the first clue about what marriage is, then why would be perfectly obvious.

Ah! So you have a perfectly valid and reasonable argument (for once) against waiting until after the baby is born, yet you won't provide it. I've seen this type of explanation before. From my daughter. "Why didn't you get your homework done?" ... "I've got a very good reason, but you just won't listen to me! Hurumph! <stomp stomp stomp slam!>" VERY convincing!

As for "first clue = perfectly obvious", wasn't it YOU who said the purpose of marriage is the production and proper raising of children? One thing that is perfectly obvious to me is that the institution of marriage does not in any way assist in the production department. That seems to happen just fine through purely biological processes. It only seems to assist in the proper raising department, which required social input and financial assistance. Therefore, the "perfectly obvious" conclusion from YOUR premeses is that marriage SHOULD happen only after the baby is born.

[Griff]

Also, if marriage is necessary for the proper rearing of children, are you saying that gay parents are an exception? Pardon my suggestion that us faggots occassionally do perfectly human things, but, pray tell, is it easier for gays and lesbians to rear children married or unmarried? This is tangential to the article of concern, but it is illustrative. Human reproduction does not rely upon marriage, as demonstrated by our meteoric population growth continuing in spite of a massive divorce rate and increasing numbers of partners choosing cohab arrangements. That the country is infested with single-parent households is more probably a sign of the nature of the economy putting unhealthy levels of stress on relationships. The queers didn't do it. The liberals didn't do it, either.

[Dlx2]

Waiting until after a baby is born is a bad idea BTW, which I am not going to go into. If you have the first clue about what marriage is, then why would be perfectly obvious.

Because the couple needs to have some measure of dedication and legal recognition in order to produce a stable home?

WAIT A MINUTE! DIDN'T YOU SAY A RELATIONSHIP CAN BE THIS WITHOUT MARRIAGE?

[Hooboy !!]

On the contrary, I'm fairly politically literate.
Followed by...

Collectivism stresses the import of the collective good of society over the liberty and dignity of the individual.
LMFAO

Thanks for that.

[Hooboy !!]

Ah! So you have a perfectly valid and reasonable argument (for once) against waiting until after the baby is born, yet you won't provide it.
Why should I waste my time on people that will only misrepresent what I write? You want to know, start a new thread. Maybe I will participate. Maybe I won't.

As for "first clue = perfectly obvious", wasn't it YOU who said the purpose of marriage is the production and proper raising of children?
Marriage is a means to that end.

One thing that is perfectly obvious to me is that the institution of marriage does not in any way assist in the production department. That seems to happen just fine through purely biological processes.
Because fucking is the sum of producing children :rolleyes:

You know, that is problem with kids now-a-days. They haven't got the first clue what it takes to be a parent.

[Hooboy !!]

Because the couple needs to have some measure of dedication and legal recognition in order to produce a stable home?
That is part of it. Hint: Marriage is a "contract".

[Griff]

LMFAOI'm right, though.

http://freedomkeys.com/collectivism.htm

http://www.sociologyprofessor.com/socialtheories/collectivism.php

You're a collectivist if there ever was one. Your friendliness with capitalism is probably rooted in the "market" being treated as a super-organism that needs to be fed, served, and pandered to like some temple god. That's how it works with most conservatives, anyway. They haven't the foggiest understanding of Adam Smith, and they probably lack the capacity.

Fortunately, I think that urbanization will eventually slay the collectivist beast. With people increasingly being packed into cities and suburbs, those who can best weather the effects of crowding are apt to be those who are skilled in putting emotional distance between themselves and those with whom they have only a superficial relationship, allowing them more leisure and energy with which to pursue regular pairbonds. A more individualistic and tolerant populace should be the crowning result.

[FatherMithras]

Hooboy seems to think that it's okay to not follow logic, and to make exceptions not based on the necessity of his premise. If kids are the point of a marriage, than infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry, nor should people without the intention of raising kids.

[Dr Rick]

Hooboy seems to think that it's okay to not follow logic, and to make exceptions not based on the necessity of his premise.You have hit the nail on the head.If kids are the point of a marriage, than infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry, nor should people without the intention of raising kids.Hooboy's underlying prejudice is more basic than that: He simply doesn't want homosexuals to get married. To defend that belief rather than simply admit it, Hooboy spews out one rationalization after another.You're a collectivist if there ever was one.His rationalizations may lend themselves to collectivism in some aspect or another, but there's no reason to assume that he follows collectivism any more than he really believes that masturbation is a form of procreation or marriage should only be allowed after childbirth.

[Hooboy !!]

I'm right, though.

http://freedomkeys.com/collectivism.htm

http://www.sociologyprofessor.com/socialtheories/collectivism.php
No, you are not and those sources do nothing to help your assertion.

[Hooboy !!]

Hooboy seems to think that it's okay to not follow logic, and to make exceptions not based on the necessity of his premise.
This statement is not an indictment of my logic, but is rather an indictment of your poor understanding of my logic. That is not my fault... entirely anyway.

If kids are the point of a marriage, than infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry, ...
Why not? Are you in favor of intrusions into privacy?

... nor should people without the intention of raising kids.
I agree with this BTW.

[laughing dog]

nor should people without the intention of raising kids.

I agree with this BTW.
Are you in favor of intrusions into privacy? Oops, I forgot I was in contradictionville.

[Griff]

No, you are not and those sources do nothing to help your assertion.Pardon me for taking the trouble of supporting my argument. Now, what it seems you are saying is either 1) there is a conflict between what the sources say and what I'm saying, which you're obliged to demonstrate, 2) you don't have confidence in the sources of reference I provided, for which you should give some reason, or 3) I have misjudged you, in which case you should defend yourself.

Now, if you had merely remained silent, I wouldn't have thought anymore on the issue, but, as it is, I'm compelled to tell you 1) that my perception of your views, as far as I have articulated, is fairly congruent with the definitions provided by the sources, 2) that my sources are reasonably adequate, and 3) that I don't think I am misjudging you at all.

Hooboy, stop being silly, and just admit you're wrong. You're twisting yourself into logical pretzels at this point, and you're coming to seem disingenuous. Do you have some ulterior motive here which you have not made us aware of?

[Hooboy !!]

Are you in favor of intrusions into privacy? Oops, I forgot I was in contradictionville.
If I had actually suggested some way of knowing this, then you would have an argument, but I did not. So, all you have is an assumption. Again.

[Hooboy !!]

Pardon me for taking the trouble of supporting my argument. Now, what it seems you are saying is either 1) there is a conflict between what the sources say and what I'm saying, which you're obliged to demonstrate, 2) you don't have confidence in the sources of reference I provided, for which you should give some reason, or 3) I have misjudged you, in which case you should defend yourself.
The first source was perfectly useless. The second source provides only a brief and unclear definition. The assertion that "Collectivism stresses the import of the collective good of society over the liberty and dignity of the individual" is basically propoganda, which is reflected in the sources you linked to. I am wagering plagarized from. Hint: Collectivism does not necessarily rob individuals of their liberty or their dignity.

[laughing dog]

If I had actually suggested some way of knowing this, then you would have an argument, but I did not. So, all you have is an assumption. Again.
You used the same "logic" when someone asked about infertile couples. Sorry, bud, it either works in both cases or it doesn't work at all. That is the way logic is in the real world. How it works in contradictionville is anyone's guess.

[Hooboy !!]

You used the same "logic" when someone asked about infertile couples. Sorry, bud, it either works in both cases or it doesn't work at all. That is the way logic is in the real world. How it works in contradictionville is anyone's guess.
To know if a couple were infertile, it would require the state conducting fertility tests on prospective couples. This is an invasion of privacy.

There is no way of knowing a person's intent. Fuck, even the person may not know their own intentions (I believe people rarely do).

The operative word was "should", as in "ought". It is a moral/ethical issue, not one of logic. Nor is it one of privacy. Fertility is not an "ought". It is an "is". So no. It does not work in both cases. Not even close.

[Alexander Hamilton]

To know if a couple were infertile, it would require the state conducting fertility tests on prospective couples. This is an invasion of privacy.

There is no way of knowing a person's intent. Fuck, even the person may not know their own intentions (I believe people rarely do).

The operative word was "should", as in "ought". It is a moral/ethical issue, not one of logic. Nor is it one of privacy. Fertility is not an "ought". It is an "is". So no. It does not work in both cases. Not even close.

Which is why you require a baby before marriage.

Wait...some states require blood tests to check for STDs, but requiring a baby is an invasion of privacy? If the purpose of giving couples marriages is to help them raise a baby, then for goodness sake, make the existance of a child a requirement for marriage!

[Hooboy !!]

Which is why you require a baby before marriage.
This causes other problems.

Wait...some states require blood tests to check for STDs, but requiring a baby is an invasion of privacy?
First, if disease control is a serious issue, then invasions of privacy could be justifiable. Second, requiring a baby is not an invasion of privacy. That would be perfecty obvious. Testing for fertility would be.

[Alexander Hamilton]

This causes other problems.

No it doesn't.

First, if disease control is a serious issue, then invasions of privacy could be justifiable. Second, requiring a baby is not an invasion of privacy. That would be perfecty obvious. Testing for fertility would be.
And I suggested testing for fertility when exactly...? >_>

Wait a minute...we can test for diseases because they are an "serious issue" but we can't test for fertility even though having biological children is the ENTIRE POINT of marriage?

[Hooboy !!]

No it doesn't.
Yes. It does.

Wait a minute...we can test for diseases because they are an "serious issue" but we can't test for fertility even though having biological children is the ENTIRE POINT of marriage?
Infertile couples marrying is not a serious problem.

[laughing dog]

To know if a couple were infertile, it would require the state conducting fertility tests on prospective couples. This is an invasion of privacy.

There is no way of knowing a person's intent. Fuck, even the person may not know their own intentions (I believe people rarely do).

The operative word was "should", as in "ought". It is a moral/ethical issue, not one of logic. Nor is it one of privacy. Fertility is not an "ought". It is an "is". So no. It does not work in both cases. Not even close.
Dude if couples who are either infertile or do not intend to get have children should not be allowed to marry, then the necessary invasion of privacy is the same, even in contradictionville. Duh.

[Hooboy !!]

Dude if couples who are either infertile or do not intend to get have children should not be allowed to marry, then the necessary invasion of privacy is the same, even in contradictionville. Duh.
Ahhh. Forget it. I just don't care what the fuck you think.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Yes. It does.

Nope. It definately doesn't.
Infertile couples marrying is not a serious problem.
Yet extending those rights to gay couples would be a problem...?

Ahhh. Forget it. I just don't care what the fuck you think.

That's right, Hooboy. Curse and claim you don't care what we think. That's a great way to defend your arguments.

Get a grip. You're not a 17 year old girl.

[Griff]

I am wagering plagarized from.Oh, you really blew it this time, Hooboy. What fucking nerve. Well, get this: America is a pluralistic society at its basis, and the present resistance to gay rights is a wholly temporary aberration that will not last for more than another decade. It is a mere skirmish in a war that was essentially over long, long ago. <EDIT>.

[Hooboy !!]

Yet extending those rights to gay couples would be a problem...?
It would create a problem that does not currently exist.

That's right, Hooboy. Curse and claim you don't care what we think. That's a great way to defend your arguments.

Get a grip. You're not a 17 year old girl.
lol

[Hooboy !!]

You would have us all take the place of Sisypheus.
Sisyphus is one of my heroes BTW. It makes me wonder why you chose that particular character.

<EDIT>
lol

That the best you can do? You're not gonna demand to know my address so you can come to my house and kick my ass? Dream away, but the facts remain... your homosexual lifestyle will never produce anything even remotely as significant or as important as what I have accomplished... many times.

[Alexander Hamilton]

It would create a problem that does not currently exist.

But you said infertile couples are not a problem. Gays=infertile couples. Therefore, they are not a problem. Besides, the government can't go halfway. "Infertile couples can marry because we don't want to bother requiring a baby, but gay couples can't because they are easier to spot." Marriage is what it is, and it doesn't change based on gender.

You still haven't given one reason why requiring a baby before marriage is a bad idea.

Dream away, but the facts remain... your homosexual lifestyle will never produce anything even remotely as significant or as important as what I have accomplished... many times.
Nice to know you judge people solely on how many offspring they produced. I supposed George Washington's acomplishments pale in comparison to your reproductive abilities.

[Smullyan-esque]

Yet extending those rights to gay couples would be a problem...?
It would create a problem that does not currently exist.


And that "problem" would be ... ... ?

[Smullyan-esque]

Dream away, but the facts remain... your homosexual lifestyle will never produce anything even remotely as significant or as important as what I have accomplished... many times.

Wow. Bigoted much?

[laughing dog]

Ahhh. Forget it. I just don't care what the fuck you think.
Someone is in a pissy contradictory mood today. Thanks for attesting I think. Wish I could reciprocate, but anyone who mouths that the quantity of their offspring matters in any argument about homosexual marriage must wait for such validation.

[Dr Rick]

Infertile couples marrying is not a serious problem.Homosexual couples marrying isn't a serious problem, either.

[Griff]

Man...this guy really is screwy.

[The AntiChris]

This thread has long since ceased to be productive.

Closed.

Chris (Mod, MF&P)