A new case against gay marriage.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-03-2013, 10:57 PM
Rainbow A new case against gay marriage.
In an article that was brought to my attention atheists bring up an actual, non-religious case against gay marriage. : http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

Quite honestly, this troubles me quite a bit, I have no ideas on how to refute these other than "Do you really think that America needs more people?" I read through all of the argument and some of the comments, but after a few minutes I started to get depressed, so I just stopped.

Anyways... what are your thoughts on gay/lesbian marriage?

Silence is golden, but a golden prison is still nothing more than a jail. And these people are not criminals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 11:16 PM
RE: A new case against gay marriage.
(17-03-2013 10:57 PM)That Atheist Coydog Wrote:  In an article that was brought to my attention atheists bring up an actual, non-religious case against gay marriage. : http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

Quite honestly, this troubles me quite a bit, I have no ideas on how to refute these other than "Do you really think that America needs more people?" I read through all of the argument and some of the comments, but after a few minutes I started to get depressed, so I just stopped.

Anyways... what are your thoughts on gay/lesbian marriage?
You might appreciate the libertarian Rand Paul's view bit more then:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/righ...-marriage/

In summary, his position is to get the government out of marriage altogether--there is no need for government to sanction or not sanction marriage in his view. Then, individuals would have the freedom to enter into contracts of marriage as they see fit without the government saying who can or cannot do so. Everyone then is equal under contract law--voila, problem solved!

Why couldn't the government just keep the tax credits with kids and heads of household? The article argues the only reason for the government to have an interest in marriage is to encourage procreation. Ha! Like we need any government encouragement for that! A gay couple that adopts or has a kid through surrogacy should be treated the same under the tax code as a heterosexual couple that has a kid. The government can support child rearing by simply tying any tax breaks to the actual kid. Beyond the tax issue, there is no real role for the federal government in marriage at all that I can see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 11:17 PM
RE: A new case against gay marriage.
My thoughts on gay marriage are thus: I don't profess to know how other people should live their lives.

My thoughts on this article are that it's a load of state sucking toadie garbage. The state is merely a conglomeration of people and like me, those people have no business telling other people how to live their lives.

My thoughts on how to resolve this problem is to eliminate the state but, since that's not going to happen any time soon, it should get out of the pockets and bedrooms of consenting adults. If two men want to marry one another and an insurance company wants to insure them like a heterosexual couple, then good. If one insurance company doesn't want to insure them, then good... they can seek one that will. However, the state uses guns to solve its problems (most of which, it creates first) and there is no sane reason to point guns at people because they like to fuck one another with the same type of utensils.

Getting back to the article, it is absurd to think that if you write down a law that says two people can't fuck one another (incest laws), they won't do so. If people want to have sex they're going to have sex, regardless of what someone else thinks about it.

"Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of
propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them
the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state
interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay
marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far,
this burden has not been met." -
from the article

I thought government was here to serve the people??? Right. And the clergyman is going to give your money directly to god. I puked in my own mouth when I read this bit of tripe.


BTW, welcome to the forum!

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 11:38 PM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2013 11:43 PM by That Atheist Coydog.)
RE: A new case against gay marriage.
(17-03-2013 11:16 PM)BryanS Wrote:  You might appreciate the libertarian Rand Paul's view bit more then:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/righ...-marriage/

In summary, his position is to get the government out of marriage altogether--there is no need for government to sanction or not sanction marriage in his view. Then, individuals would have the freedom to enter into contracts of marriage as they see fit without the government saying who can or cannot do so. Everyone then is equal under contract law--voila, problem solved!

Why couldn't the government just keep the tax credits with kids and heads of household? The article argues the only reason for the government to have an interest in marriage is to encourage procreation. Ha! Like we need any government encouragement for that! A gay couple that adopts or has a kid through surrogacy should be treated the same under the tax code as a heterosexual couple that has a kid. The government can support child rearing by simply tying any tax breaks to the actual kid. Beyond the tax issue, there is no real role for the federal government in marriage at all that I can see.
Though, I do lean towards Ron/ Rand Paul's idea sets, I don't believe that religion should be separated from the government, if it isn't regulated, then some weird crap will be going on, indefinitely. I just wish that they would change the standards for lawful marriage to two consenting adults.

(17-03-2013 11:17 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I thought government was here to serve the people??? Right. And the clergyman is going to give your money directly to god. I puked in my own mouth when I read this bit of tripe.


BTW, welcome to the forum!
Yeah, my heart dropped when reading it, I had no idea that there were other atheists that believed this crap, and thanks for the welcome.

Silence is golden, but a golden prison is still nothing more than a jail. And these people are not criminals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2013, 12:12 AM
RE: A new case against gay marriage.
Quoting from the article:

"Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce."

You stupid moron! What about heterosexual married couples who choose to be childfree? Should they undergo a forced divorce? Jeeez get a life, dude!

"Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return, and we can, because the cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." (Carl Sagan)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2013, 02:20 AM
RE: A new case against gay marriage.
If "the state" is going to pretend that homosexual marriage should be disallowed based on the inability to reproduce, then first they must demonstrate that "the state" marriage laws are created to facilitate reproduction:

Does "the state" deny marriage to sterile individuals?
Does "the state" deny marriage to post-menopausal women?
Does "the state" regulate childbirths or punish married couples for lack of reproduction?

No, no, and no.

Clearly, so far, "the state" is not enforcing a procreation agenda for marriage laws.

Ergo, when "the state" claims that such an agenda is a valid excuse to disallow homosexual marriage, what "the state" is really doing is trying to invent an excuse for some other agenda, perhaps an religion-based agenda, without actually admitting what that other agenda is.

It's a pretense, plain and simple, and a rather transparent one.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
18-03-2013, 03:20 AM
RE: A new case against gay marriage.
(18-03-2013 02:20 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  If "the state" is going to pretend that homosexual marriage should be disallowed based on the inability to reproduce, then first they must demonstrate that "the state" marriage laws are created to facilitate reproduction:

Does "the state" deny marriage to sterile individuals?
Does "the state" deny marriage to post-menopausal women?
Does "the state" regulate childbirths or punish married couples for lack of reproduction?

No, no, and no.

Clearly, so far, "the state" is not enforcing a procreation agenda for marriage laws.

Ergo, when "the state" claims that such an agenda is a valid excuse to disallow homosexual marriage, what "the state" is really doing is trying to invent an excuse for some other agenda, perhaps an religion-based agenda, without actually admitting what that other agenda is.

It's a pretense, plain and simple, and a rather transparent one.

I didn't read the entire article, but from what I did read, it seemed to address all you complaints. According to the article basically its not worth the states time to enforce a ban on these subgroups.

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 151
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2013, 08:31 AM
RE: A new case against gay marriage.
The argument rests on the idea that marriage should be based on reproducing, that it is supposed to serve the state, and that banning same-sex marriage somehow makes homosexual people want to marry those of the opposite sex. That's bullshit.

- If a lesbian can't marry a woman, she isn't going to marry at all. Because she can't marry, she is less likely to adopt a child, or be artificially inseminated and have a child.
- If a gay couple cannot marry, they are less likely to adopt, or use a surrogate mother.
- Meanwhile, the average number of children of heterosexual couples continues to drop in the western world.
- Finally, engraining the idea of marriage being about reproduction will not make childless couples procreate, but will likely discourage marriage to avoid being pressured to do so.

If the author's argument is that marriage should serve the state by increasing the population, then he should endorse same-sex marriage.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Elesjei's post
18-03-2013, 08:45 AM
RE: A new case against gay marriage.
If you would use that argument against gays, then it will need to include older couples or infertile couples who cannot have children.

“I've done everything the Bible says — even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!"— Ned Flanders
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EGross's post
18-03-2013, 09:18 AM
RE: A new case against gay marriage.
"The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right."

Those sentences, and that would include the paragraph(s) trying to explain, is making a circular argument. They would thus be begging the question with the foundation of their argument, and invalidating the entirety of their claim.

In the US we have a Constitution and a precedent of not denying certain people (US citizens) rights that are granted to others, especially when done on an arbitrary basis and without due process. At least, we are supposed to protect "rights", without due process, and when done arbitrarily or capriciously. If we were good at doing it, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

The article/essay seemed like it was from a person who kind of knew they were arguing the wrong side of the issue and thus continued to spread nonsensical, arbitrary and baseless claims, throughout, to justify the unjustifiable. None of the claims were supported by any amount of evidence or reason, especially that would be needed as a basis to establish a separate set of rights for different individuals.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: