"It's just how I was raised."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-09-2013, 04:39 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(28-09-2013 02:49 PM)odin Wrote:  the discrimination is that of the gays, imposed by the straight, who want nothing of the gay's way of conduct.
basically, there is no DIRECT discrimination of the sexes, but there is still discrimination, directed at the sexual preference of the gays.

First of all, I am of the opinion that since George Washington didn't need a marriage license to marry Martha, no one else should need a marriage license either. As a country it was better when the state didn't meddle with marriage.

That being said, we disenfranchise straight people all the time with our marriage laws. Suppose Cathym fell in love with me wanted to marry me(this is purely hypothetical because Cathym hates me....or at least really dislikes me). She couldn't marry me because I am already married. She is prevented by law from entering into a marriage with me simply because I am already married. Conceivably she could be prevented by law from marrying someone she loves. In other countries this wouldn't be a problem, but in the US its okay to discriminate against polygamists

If you are against polygamy, you are a bigot.

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2013, 04:48 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(28-09-2013 01:01 PM)morondog Wrote:  I don't class myself as bigoted against bigots on that basis 'cos I reckon my reason for despising actual bigots is pretty fucking decently reasoned.

I'm sure Hitler reckoned his reason for killing all them jews was decent too. Just because you reckon something doesn't make for a strong argument. It certainly doesn't justify stifling debate by demonizing your opponent.

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2013, 05:24 AM
 
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(28-09-2013 03:36 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  I disagree with your reasoning because I think that every societal benefit that can be assumed for heterosexual marriage also can be assumed for gay marriage, including secure environment for raising children. Therefore , the same privilege ( even if u insist calling marriage a privilege, not a right ) that is granted to heterosexuals has to be extended to gays.

What do you base your thinking on? The main advantage of a heterosexual relationship is the ability to procreate. While homosexuals are not by definition infertile, the kind of sexual intercourse they practice cannot result with children. Gay adoption is an another matter altogether - here we're talking about having and raising own children.

(28-09-2013 03:36 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  One's right, or if you insist privilege, should not be determined by his/her's sexual orientation.
And by no means is the state obligated to insure that you use your right, state is there only to provide an opportunity for you to use your rights, if you chose to exercise them.
Like free speech i.e. , state is there to make sure that your right to speak your mind is not hampered , it is not required of the state to provide you with audience.

I might be arguing semantics a bit here, but there is a difference. In this case, your right is not speech, your right is your freedom of speech. The state doesn't care what you speak because the content of your speech is not the object of your right - but rather, your freedom to speak what you want is what you are guaranteed. The same goes for your audience - it's not a necessary consequence of a speech, so it's not relevant to your right.

(28-09-2013 05:13 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Excuse me? Who says there is no social benefit to gays marrying? Who says its not a secure household? If the state required one man and one woman for children, there wouldnt' be so many single parent households. Please give any studies done that suggest that there isn't a social benefit. Thats incredibly close minded and surprising coming from someone who appears to be educated.

You ask me to prove my case - Morondog asked me the same - yet why would the burden of proof be on me? Marriage has been monogamous and heterosexual for cca. 2,000 years and it has worked.
You're the ones who want to redefine it, so it only makes sense that you demonstrate good reasons for doing it.

(28-09-2013 05:13 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I know a lot of gay couples, with children, that make better loving parents than a lot of dysfunctional heterosexual couples. Thats like saying that bi-racial couples have no social benefit! ridiculous!

I see this argument used almost every time by gay marriage advocates, despite it being fallacious - it's a form of exception fallacy. Let me illustrate this with an example. Most countries have an age limit for obtaining a driver's license - let's say it's 18 in this example. Now, one could argue that there are 17-year-olds who can already drive and are cautious and skilled (which is certainly true for some), while there are also adults who are completely oblivious to roads and driving (which is also certainly true). Based on this, one could claim that the age limit is unfair discrimination. Yet while it may be such for some, the age limit still exists and it's determined based on general experience. It would be a lot more costly to examine everyone's ability individually since the young age, so that's not done, although it would probably be more just on an individual level.

(28-09-2013 05:13 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Further, a couple's legal marriage has ZERO impact on mine, or on society other than to have a more tolerant view. (not a bad thing)

At first, this may seem true. But on second thought, it has its problems. You see, the main purpose of marriage, until about 50 years ago, was procreation. Marriage was especially important for two reasons:

I. Women/mothers needed protection since they, being homemakers, were financially dependent on their husbands.
II. When there were no pensions, posterity was necessary to secure the individual's well-being at their old age.

The times have changed however - women are now in the workforce just like men; and pensions, social security and other benefits can secure a person's old age. This is not something bad of course, but it has unfortunately led to a decreased desire to have children - much to the detriment of national birth rates. The point I'm trying to make here is that the Western society has separated the concepts of marriage and procreation, and I believe it is the reason for the "crisis" of marriage these days - i.e. high divorce rates, low marriage rates, disputes on alimony or property, etc. My reasoning is, if we extend marriage to include homosexual couples, we will finally and legally divorce marriage from procreation (pun not intended). While this may not destroy the institution of marriage, it certainly wouldn't help it either. And some developed countries that have a welfare system are already concerned about low birth rates. Pension and social security systems are already becoming overburdened because of a smaller number of people entering the workforce, and it is estimated that a shortage of workers may happen sooner than we may think. And this would affect all of us, in a negative way.

(28-09-2013 05:13 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I think you are overstating the effect societies from their stance on marriage. The only discernible impact to society is the presence or absence of tax benefits. For example, if a couple is died a tax benefit and get taxed at a higher rate, that would provide more revenue for the government but at almost a diminimus amount so as it would not make a difference. It makes no difference on society if a homosexual couple is allowed to make medical decisions for their spouse, nor does it make any difference to society if a homosexual couple's next of kin is their spouse. Makes no difference to our society regarding children, accept if you consider it as a positive thing that if a parent should die, that they would be kept out of the foster system by staying with the other "gay" parent.

All these benefits you've noted here can be accessed via a civil union - at least I think it's so in most countries.

(28-09-2013 08:01 PM)morondog Wrote:  I think your and my definitions of the word hate are different. I view oppression of a minority as hate regardless of how well reasoned it may be.

It's your right to think so. But that remains your personal view nevertheless.

(28-09-2013 08:01 PM)morondog Wrote:  I say that you can't be married if you are an interracial couple. There is no discrimination here because the same rule applies to everyone equally.

Banning interracial marriages would raise another problem however. An interracial (heterosexual) couple can procreate just as the one where both partners are of the same race.
So there's no basis to not allow it - although it would apply to everyone equally, it would be unnecessarily oppressive.

(28-09-2013 08:01 PM)morondog Wrote:  The problem with the "same rule applies so suck it up" idea is that if I *want* to marry another man, I should be allowed to. Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do ?

I can't, but the government can - it upholds the marriage so it can make rules. And it already restricts your choices on whom you may marry. You can't marry your family member. You can't marry a person under a certain age. You can't have multiple wives. The state restricts this with a perspective on the society as a whole. So for instance, marrying a sibling is not possible because it may lead to genetically defective children. No matter how one may "love" their sibling in a sexual way, and how much it's consensual, it's still not an option.

(28-09-2013 08:01 PM)morondog Wrote:  Also, at least in US AFAIK, law prohibits unequal treatment. Excluding a whole class of people from a legal union is unequal. You can't even get around it by saying "OK they can have a civil union but not marriage", unless you say "no one can have marriage any more, it is a civil union for everyone" - it has to be *equal* treatment.

Unequal treatment is prohibited in Europe as well, based on Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Yet the ECtHR, the court that enforces that convention, doesn't seem to agree that there has to be "equal treatment" - as I've linked in one of my previous posts. Also, the ECtHR ruled in 2012 that the limitation of MPA techniques to heterosexual couples and the refusal to allow a woman to adopt her same-sex partner’s child were not discriminatory either - see more at: http://eclj.org/Releases/Read.aspx?GUID=...qe2rh.dpuf

In fact, the aforementioned Article 14 on discrimination doesn't explicitly mention discrimination based on sexual orientation at all, although many categories are mentioned.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2013, 05:50 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(29-09-2013 04:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  That being said, we disenfranchise straight people all the time with our marriage laws. Suppose Cathym fell in love with me wanted to marry me(this is purely hypothetical because Cathym hates me....or at least really dislikes me). She couldn't marry me because I am already married. She is prevented by law from entering into a marriage with me simply because I am already married. Conceivably she could be prevented by law from marrying someone she loves. In other countries this wouldn't be a problem, but in the US its okay to discriminate against polygamists

If you are against polygamy, you are a bigot.

Again, Heywood is making a completely unrelated post to the topic, but I see your point. And I don't hate him, nor do I dislike him. I dislike his style of subversive and rather passive aggressive arguments. Disliking his arguments has nothing to do with disliking him. Although, I must confess, I am falling madly in love with him as we speak.

I am actually not against polygamy, if consenting, equally educated ADULTS want to enter into this antiquated union, do it up! My only objection to this is if it occurs in a cult society.
If the girls who enter into these arrangements are often isolated from the outside word and denied adequate education, then no, as this is an arrangement where the woman is one notch above property. This has more to do with my objection with the oppression of women than with the concept for polygamy.

I have no problem with polyamorous relationships, swingers, or those who engage in "open marriages."

Lets just understand that in general, I am against the the oppression of women and the requirement of submission. (heywood - I like to be on top. I hope this won't be a problem for you)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2013, 06:21 AM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2013 06:24 AM by Slowminded.)
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(29-09-2013 05:24 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  
(28-09-2013 03:36 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  One's right, or if you insist privilege, should not be determined by his/her's sexual orientation.
And by no means is the state obligated to insure that you use your right, state is there only to provide an opportunity for you to use your rights, if you chose to exercise them.
Like free speech i.e. , state is there to make sure that your right to speak your mind is not hampered , it is not required of the state to provide you with audience.


What do you base your thinking on? The main advantage of a heterosexual relationship is the ability to procreate. While homosexuals are not by definition infertile, the kind of sexual intercourse they practice cannot result with children. Gay adoption is an another matter altogether - here we're talking about having and raising own children.

No. If the main advantage of a heterosexual relationship is the ability to procreate and you use that as a reason against gay marriage , then, by following your logic heterosexual couples who don't desire or are unable to have children for medical reasons should not be permitted to get married also.
Institution of marriage has very little to do with children before there are any as a result of marriage, getting married is not an obligation to have children, nor the capability to have children is a condition to get married.
Two 80 year old people can get married even if it's evident that they can't have children of their own. Man and women who can't have children for medical reasons can also get married, so, your point that not being capable to have children of their own is a reason for not allowing gay marriage is invalid.


Quote:I might be arguing semantics a bit here, but there is a difference. In this case, your right is not speech, your right is your freedom of speech. The state doesn't care what you speak because the content of your speech is not the object of your right - but rather, your freedom to speak what you want is what you are guaranteed. The same goes for your audience - it's not a necessary consequence of a speech, so it's not relevant to your right.

It is semantics, but everything you said here applies to the marriage as well, your right is to get married, and the state shouldn't be concerned with who you are marrying, in what way you have sex, and what are the possible outcomes of the way you have sex with your spouse.
And the same goes for having children - it's not a necessary consequence of a marriage, so it's not relevant to your right.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2013, 06:46 AM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2013 06:52 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(29-09-2013 06:21 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  No. If the main advantage of a heterosexual relationship is the ability to procreate and you use that as a reason against gay marriage , then, by following your logic heterosexual couples who don't desire or are unable to have children for medical reasons should not be permitted to get married also.

How would you police heterosexual people who don't desire or can't have children from marrying? There isn't an easy, cost effective way of doing this. Women have been know to naturally conceive as old as 73.

On the otherhand homosexual couples at any age have never been know to naturally produce an offspring....so this is something much easier to police.

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2013, 06:55 AM
 
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(29-09-2013 06:21 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  No. If the main advantage of a heterosexual relationship is the ability to procreate and you use that as a reason against gay marriage , then, by following your logic heterosexual couples who don't desire or are unable to have children for medical reasons should not be permitted to get married also.
Institution of marriage has very little to do with children before there are any as a result of marriage, getting married is not an obligation to have children, nor the capability to have children is a condition to get married.
Two 80 year old people can get married even if it's evident that they can't have children of their own. Man and women who can't have children for medical reasons can also get married, so, your point that not being capable to have children of their own is a reason for not allowing gay marriage is invalid.

You are arguing from exceptions - I have already explained this line of reasoning using driver's license analogy. The fact that there are adults who are not capable of driving, and minors who are, doesn't invalidate the general rule that the minimum age for attaining a driver's license is 18 (age may vary by country). It is the simplest solution.

In the same way, we accept the general statement that a heterosexual married couple will likely have children. Some certainly won't - but finding out who will, and allowing marriage only to those couples would be costly, complicated and most of all, intrusive. How would you be sure that they would have children? Would they have to sign a contract with the state? Also, to know if a couple is infertile, the state would have to examine their medical records which would be unethical and would violate their privacy. After all, a heterosexual couple may be prevented from having a child because of reasons like medical conditions* or age - while a homosexual couple by definition cannot have their own child by natural means. So in the end, the simplest solution is to simply grant the privilege of marriage to heterosexual couples generally.

* Web Health Centre defines infertility as a condition. http://www.webhealthcentre.com/DiseaseCo...nfert.aspx

(29-09-2013 06:21 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  It is semantics, but everything you said here applies to the marriage as well, your right is to get married, and the state shouldn't be concerned with who you are marrying,

Again, by default, nobody has the right to get married. The government grants those privileges according to the benefits the society might have from them. It's like granting subsidies.
Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2013, 06:56 AM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2013 07:50 AM by Cathym112.)
Tongue RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(29-09-2013 05:24 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  What do you base your thinking on? The main advantage of a heterosexual relationship is the ability to procreate. While homosexuals are not by definition infertile, the kind of sexual intercourse they practice cannot result with children. Gay adoption is an another matter altogether - here we're talking about having and raising own children.

So by that logic, infertile couples, couples past child bearing age, and couples who simply do not want children should not be granted the same benefits as marriage. Additionally, according to the Bible, the laws of nature were suspended for an immaculate conception. Therefore, husbands should continue to inseminate their husbands and hope for the best. Also, if there is only the benefit to one man and one woman raising children, adoption agencies that allow for the placement of a child into a single parent household should be shut down.


(29-09-2013 05:24 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  I might be arguing semantics a bit here, but there is a difference. In this case, your right is not speech, your right is your freedom of speech. The state doesn't care what you speak because the content of your speech is not the object of your right - but rather, your freedom to speak what you want is what you are guaranteed. The same goes for your audience - it's not a necessary consequence of a speech, so it's not relevant to your right.

I do not understand this argument at all. You actually do not have the ability to say whatever you want. You cannot yell fire in a theater, nor are you allowed to lie under oath. So no, free speech does not cover that you are allowed to speak, it also covers what you are speaking.


(29-09-2013 05:24 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  You ask me to prove my case - Morondog asked me the same - yet why would the burden of proof be on me? Marriage has been monogamous and heterosexual for cca. 2,000 years and it has worked.
You're the ones who want to redefine it, so it only makes sense that you demonstrate good reasons for doing it.



You are the one making the extraordinary claim that homosexual relationships can't have the same social benefits as a heterosexual one. Therefore you have the burden of proof. But very well. Here is an excerpt regarding the social science aspects to marriage.


Benefits of Marriage
Besides love and companionship, there are many benefits to marriage, especially in the eyes of the law. In fact, there are 1,138 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities associated with marriage [ref]. In this section, we'll list some of those benefits.
Spouses have or are entitled to:
visitation rights and can make medical decisions, unless otherwise specified in a living will
benefits for federal employees -- many of which are also offered by private employers -- such as sick leave, bereavement leave, days off for the birth of a child, pension and retirement benefits, family health insurance plans
some property and inheritance rights, even in the absence of a will
the ability to create life insurance trusts
tax benefits, such as being able to give tax free gifts to a spouse and to file joint tax returns
the ability to receive Medicare, Social Security, disability and veteran's benefits for a spouse
discount or family rates for auto, health and homeowners insurance
immigration and residency benefits, making it easier to bring a spouse to the U.S. from abroad
visiting rights in jail
Social scientists have also found many positive benefits for married couples and families, including fewer incidents of poverty and mental health problems in families where the parents are married rather than simply cohabitating. Many studies also support the idea that children living with married parents do better in a variety of ways than children in any other living arrangement [ref].

Please explain to me, what exists in those examples of social benefits that cannot exist for a homosexual couple. And children can't be one of them, because adoption is just as available to them as an infertile couple.

Marriage has NOT been the monogamous for 2,000 years. Its been polygamous, and existed in a sense where women were property, arranged for political alliances and tribes. I also want you to define "working" because the divorce rate in religious communities (below the bible belt in the US) is higher than in the more liberal states.

marriage has never changed. Women are still considered property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. [insert sarcasm font]



(29-09-2013 05:24 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  I see this argument used almost every time by gay marriage advocates, despite it being fallacious - it's a form of exception fallacy. Let me illustrate this with an example. Most countries have an age limit for obtaining a driver's license - let's say it's 18 in this example. Now, one could argue that there are 17-year-olds who can already drive and are cautious and skilled (which is certainly true for some), while there are also adults who are completely oblivious to roads and driving (which is also certainly true). Based on this, one could claim that the age limit is unfair discrimination. Yet while it may be such for some, the age limit still exists and it's determined based on general experience. It would be a lot more costly to examine everyone's ability individually since the young age, so that's not done, although it would probably be more just on an individual level.


Apples, meet oranges. Oranges, meet apples. Having the right to marry who you want is NOT like driving. An inexperienced driver, operating a vehicle weighing more than 1,000 lbs, is immediately affects everyone around that driver in a very direct way. A marriage, on the other hand, has a very minimal or indirect affect.


Also, the age limit regarding things, drinking and/or driving, is subject to change. Currently, the drinking age is 21. It WAS 18. By that logic, since you made the comparison, and not me, marriage is also subject to change.

Further, there is no age limit for the ability or right to reproduce, so again your argument is invalid. If there were, the jails would be filled with pregnant 13-14 year olds who become pregnant from other 13-14 year olds. You still did not address the fact that homosexual couples can provide an equally loving and stable household as heterosexual couples.


(29-09-2013 05:24 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  At first, this may seem true. But on second thought, it has its problems. You see, the main purpose of marriage, until about 50 years ago, was procreation. Marriage was especially important for two reasons:

I. Women/mothers needed protection since they, being homemakers, were financially dependent on their husbands.
II. When there were no pensions, posterity was necessary to secure the individual's well-being at their old age.

The times have changed however - women are now in the workforce just like men; and pensions, social security and other benefits can secure a person's old age. This is not something bad of course, but it has unfortunately led to a decreased desire to have children - much to the detriment of national birth rates. The point I'm trying to make here is that the Western society has separated the concepts of marriage and procreation, and I believe it is the reason for the "crisis" of marriage these days - i.e. high divorce rates, low marriage rates, disputes on alimony or property, etc. My reasoning is, if we extend marriage to include homosexual couples, we will finally and legally divorce marriage from procreation (pun not intended). While this may not destroy the institution of marriage, it certainly wouldn't help it either. And some developed countries that have a welfare system are already concerned about low birth rates. Pension and social security systems are already becoming overburdened because of a smaller number of people entering the workforce, and it is estimated that a shortage of workers may happen sooner than we may think. And this would affect all of us, in a negative way.


Lets deal with this in two parts. The first is disspell your incorrect notion that all women want children. This is just categorically untrue. Women are choosing not to have children because it is becoming more socially acceptable not to. My grandmother is a prime example. She never wanted to get married, nor did she want children. Social pressures however, eventually forced her into it. (BTW, not all men want children either). If all women wanted children, there wouldn't be this thing called adoption. Babies don't come from a factory....these are women that got pregnant and didn't want the child!.

Second - are you honestly blaming WOMEN for the shortage of pensions and social security systems? Jesus fucking christ. I am so sick of women being blamed for the world's problems. Guess whose gonna get blamed for the war in Iraq? Perhaps you have heard of the concept between causation and correlation. While there is a correlation between more women in general entering the workforce and the additional stress on the pension and social security systems, it does not conclude CAUSATION. you have completely forgotten that longer life spans, poor investment, bad economy, and influx of social security claims as the baby boomers reach retirement age are the causation. Because social security is nothing more than a ponzi scheme, the new payments used to pay the old, there isn't enough people in the X & Y generation combined to support the population of baby boomers.

(28-09-2013 05:13 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I think you are overstating the effect societies from their stance on marriage. The only discernible impact to society is the presence or absence of tax benefits. For example, if a couple is died a tax benefit and get taxed at a higher rate, that would provide more revenue for the government but at almost a diminimus amount so as it would not make a difference. It makes no difference on society if a homosexual couple is allowed to make medical decisions for their spouse, nor does it make any difference to society if a homosexual couple's next of kin is their spouse. Makes no difference to our society regarding children, accept if you consider it as a positive thing that if a parent should die, that they would be kept out of the foster system by staying with the other "gay" parent.

(29-09-2013 05:24 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  All these benefits you've noted here can be accessed via a civil union - at least I think it's so in most countries.

First of all, civil unions do not give the spouse the right to make medical decisions or be considered next of kin. Also, that whole "separate but equal" concept worked sooooo well for blacks and whites, eh?

Secondly, you did not address the concept of this - which was - the only benefit that affects society as a whole, although GROSSLY overstated, is the presence or absence of tax benefits. Other than that, someone else's marriage has ZERO affect on mine.


In general, your intolerance speaks a lot to your fear of change. This was evident when blacks/whites tried to marry, and also when women were trying to vote.

There were all these claims about society just falling apart because of a change. You know what? Nothing bad happened. There wasn't a breakdown of society as we know it. We adapted to new social norms. Just like we adapted to cars, longer life spans, telephones, the Internet, and the recession.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2013, 07:24 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
I hear a lot of counter arguments to the logical fallacy that infertile couples and couples beyond child bearing age should still be allowed to marry because infertility is a medical condition.

I get it. You are making the argument that:

"Even couples who neither have nor rear children set an important example for those that may. Married infertile couples still support the norm that sexual relationships between men and women should take place within marriage. Their observance of vows of faithfulness reinforces the social norm that children should ideally enjoy the security, nurture, and love of their father and mother and not be subject to the turbulence of impermanent couplings that lead to motherless or fatherless families."

This is a powerful argument. It focuses not on diversity or equality but on conservative principles of character formation: models, expectations, culture, obligations, responsibility, faithfulness, permanence. Even couples who can’t fulfill marriage as a biological ideal can, and should, reinforce it as a norm.

However, this is STILL a gateway to accepting gay marriage. Once you acknowledge that homosexuality is involuntary and immutable, you can start to think about it the way you think about infertility. Your son or daughter, or your neighbor’s son or daughter, may have been dealt a difficult hand. Make the best of it. Encourage these people to embrace marriage as fully as they can.

Depending on how you define it, infertility affects 9 percent of women and perhaps 15 percent of couples. That’s far more common than homosexuality. Beyond age 50, the infertility rate among women is near 100 percent. Extending marriage rights to all these people hasn’t destroyed the marital norm. It has bolstered it. Gay marriage does the same. It domesticates sex and affirms the simple values of commitment and mutual responsibility. It doesn’t make straight people gay, promiscuous, or indifferent to parenthood. It sets a good example for them.

Don’t take my word for it. Read the briefs against same-sex marriage. They explain all too cogently how infertile couples strengthen the marital norm. All you have to do is recognize what the authors failed to see: Millions of these couples are gay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2013, 07:42 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(29-09-2013 04:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If you are against polygamy, you are a bigot.

No, that's not what 'bigot' means.

If you hate and deprecate people solely because they practice polygamy, that is bigotry.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: