Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-01-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
(05-01-2014 01:27 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  So because our flawed systems require an unsustainable growth to avoid catastrophic failure, we should incentivise marriage between people who are more likely to create contributing members of society... Seems legit.



Unless they're giving it to a nice, newly married homosexual couple or something Smile

Fair enough!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 01:32 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...iage-Soars

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 01:32 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
Poe?

Must be. Nobody is that stupid. Consider

Just visiting.

-SR
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Stark Raving's post
05-01-2014, 01:44 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
(05-01-2014 01:02 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  We've been trough all this before, haven't we.




Onward, my faithful steed!
[Image: ezgif-save_zps4d93a674.gif?t=1395781443]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Crulax's post
05-01-2014, 01:47 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
Your views are wrong but they seem right at first glance, in a very superficial and quick glance. Basically you didn't put any thought into it, you just tried to find a justification for your ideas.
Let me now show you why you're so wrong:

(05-01-2014 12:50 PM)veitstoss Wrote:  Stripped down to its bare essentials, a marriage certificate is a legal document.
A marriage certificate is not marriage itself, marriage is a legal institution (although there are different ideas about it in legal doctrine, the institution theory is the most accepted). That means, to mention one thing, that it has a myriad of different rules and specifics that make it far more complex than just a contract.

Quote: It seems to me that, by far, the principal reason for marriage as a legal institution is to sanction the procreation of children - i.e the continuation of the human species.

It seems to you wrong, the purposes of marriage are varied: Emotional fulfilment, interpersonal support, accompaniment, economic support, formation of a family (not necessarily biologically related, it could be by adoption), sexual pleasure, etcetera

Quote:The vast majority of studies I've read suggest that, GENERALLY speaking, children who are product of married parents tend to make more rounded citizens than those whose parents are separated/divorced, in terms of how long they remain in education, salary level, likelihood of spending time in prison etc. Therefore, couples who intend to marry in order to establish a stable foundation for the production of children should be incentivised by the state to do so (tax/inheritance benefits). It's in society's interests.

[Citation needed]

Also, studies also show that while not separated couples are better for children, those couples don't have to be heterosexual. As long as their parents (hetero or homosexual, or whatever) are together the kids will do fine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Consensus

Quote:This ties in with the time-honoured definition of marriage being a union between a man and a woman, essentially because they represent the two components required for sexual reproduction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Quote:A same-sex couple represents one component only. In terms of entitlement to legally marry, this is not the same as a hetero couple who choose not to have children or are unable to do so for some physiological reason. Put simply, a same-sex couple has zero potential for producing a family therefore has no legal justification for marrying.

False dichotomy, an infertile couple has zero potential too, how a couple is composed is irrelevant in that case, and it becomes a slippery slope for your argument.
Also, if marriage sole purpose (from your perspective) is reproduction, then married couples should have the obligation to have children, otherwise they shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the rights and protections of marriage, it would be a fraud to the Law.

Quote:Acquiring children by arranging for someone outside the relationship to provide the opposite sexual component required, so that one partner becomes a biological parent and the other is entitled to legally adopt the child, is a practice I would question the ethics of. It seems to wilfully deny a child its other biological parent.

You said you wouldn't argue from any moral standing, but you do. But even if we let that pass, the argument is false, as there are mechanisms to let the biological parents to have a relationship with their kids if they wish to do so.

Quote:I am not opposed to same-sex relationships per se but I draw the line at marriage. In my view, that can only ever be defined as a union between a man and a woman. It simply isn't a discrimination or equalities issue.

It is discrimination, as you arbitrarily restrict many rights (the ones included in the institution of marriage) to a class of people based on their sexual orientation, and try to hide it on a fallacious argument based on their reproductive inability, while letting other people get away with it (sterile heterosexual couples or couples who just don't want to have children).

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 12 users Like nach_in's post
05-01-2014, 02:10 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
If the primary purpose of marriage is reproduction, (which it has NEVER been stated to be) AND *if* marriage is a privilege or right which can be granted to some and not others, then by logic : reproduction is thus a function or privilege which can be granted or controlled by the state, and reproduction is not an inherent human right.
Bwaaaaaa. Danke, mein Herr Hitler.
The silly season on TTA continues.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Assistant Manager, Vice Detection, Whoville : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
05-01-2014, 02:11 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
Nicely demolished Nach.

And they all cried ,"Moo Motherfuckers!"


...next.

Just visiting.

-SR
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stark Raving's post
05-01-2014, 02:12 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
(05-01-2014 01:47 PM)nach_in Wrote:  Your views are wrong but they seem right at first glance, in a very superficial and quick glance. Basically you didn't put any thought into it, you just tried to find a justification for your ideas.
Let me now show you why you're so wrong:

(05-01-2014 12:50 PM)veitstoss Wrote:  Stripped down to its bare essentials, a marriage certificate is a legal document.
A marriage certificate is not marriage itself, marriage is a legal institution (although there are different ideas about it in legal doctrine, the institution theory is the most accepted). That means, to mention one thing, that it has a myriad of different rules and specifics that make it far more complex than just a contract.

Quote: It seems to me that, by far, the principal reason for marriage as a legal institution is to sanction the procreation of children - i.e the continuation of the human species.

It seems to you wrong, the purposes of marriage are varied: Emotional fulfilment, interpersonal support, accompaniment, economic support, formation of a family (not necessarily biologically related, it could be by adoption), sexual pleasure, etcetera

Quote:The vast majority of studies I've read suggest that, GENERALLY speaking, children who are product of married parents tend to make more rounded citizens than those whose parents are separated/divorced, in terms of how long they remain in education, salary level, likelihood of spending time in prison etc. Therefore, couples who intend to marry in order to establish a stable foundation for the production of children should be incentivised by the state to do so (tax/inheritance benefits). It's in society's interests.

[Citation needed]

Also, studies also show that while not separated couples are better for children, those couples don't have to be heterosexual. As long as their parents (hetero or homosexual, or whatever) are together the kids will do fine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Consensus

Quote:This ties in with the time-honoured definition of marriage being a union between a man and a woman, essentially because they represent the two components required for sexual reproduction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Quote:A same-sex couple represents one component only. In terms of entitlement to legally marry, this is not the same as a hetero couple who choose not to have children or are unable to do so for some physiological reason. Put simply, a same-sex couple has zero potential for producing a family therefore has no legal justification for marrying.

False dichotomy, an infertile couple has zero potential too, how a couple is composed is irrelevant in that case, and it becomes a slippery slope for your argument.
Also, if marriage sole purpose (from your perspective) is reproduction, then married couples should have the obligation to have children, otherwise they shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the rights and protections of marriage, it would be a fraud to the Law.

Quote:Acquiring children by arranging for someone outside the relationship to provide the opposite sexual component required, so that one partner becomes a biological parent and the other is entitled to legally adopt the child, is a practice I would question the ethics of. It seems to wilfully deny a child its other biological parent.

You said you wouldn't argue from any moral standing, but you do. But even if we let that pass, the argument is false, as there are mechanisms to let the biological parents to have a relationship with their kids if they wish to do so.

Quote:I am not opposed to same-sex relationships per se but I draw the line at marriage. In my view, that can only ever be defined as a union between a man and a woman. It simply isn't a discrimination or equalities issue.

It is discrimination, as you arbitrarily restrict many rights (the ones included in the institution of marriage) to a class of people based on their sexual orientation, and try to hide it on a fallacious argument based on their reproductive inability, while letting other people get away with it (sterile heterosexual couples or couples who just don't want to have children).


[Image: 02ecca85.jpg]

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WitchSabrina's post
05-01-2014, 02:14 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
(05-01-2014 01:04 PM)veitstoss Wrote:  I addressed the issue of hetero couples who don't or can't have children. Marriage and the legality of it is not about resulting children but the potential for having them in terms of the components required for sexual reproduction.

(NOTE: Man, threads here blow up fast! In the time it took me to register this went from 6 posts to multi pages! Slow down people! Tongue On to the actual post)

Therein lies the fault with your logic. A same sex female couple has twice the potential for having children compared to an opposite sex couple. Science has shown that, though very dangerous and potentially fatal, a male could carry a fetus to term much the same way women who have ectopic or extrauterine pregnancies.

Additionally, you forget many of the reasons why people want to be legally married in the first place: It's nothing to do with children, but the ability to take care of your spouse in ways not given to couples still considered legally single. Sexual organs play no part in the rights given to a couple when recognized as legally married.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 02:19 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
(05-01-2014 02:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If the primary purpose of marriage is reproduction, (which it has NEVER been stated to be) AND *if* marriage is a privilege or right which can be granted to some and not others, then by logic : reproduction is thus a function or privilege which can be granted or controlled by the state, and reproduction is not an inherent human right.
Bwaaaaaa. Danke, mein Herr Hitler.
The silly season on TTA continues.

Vielen dank auch!

I stated that the principal purpose of marriage is to SANCTION reproduction, not reproduction itself. Reproduction is a biological process, not a human right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: