[stupendousman]

I was going to come back to the thread and debate, despite the frustration caused by people who either can't be honest, follow the thread, are just trolling or inventing positions I've taken. The first new post I came to after my last contained this in the very first sentence....

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I used to think that homosexuality was a choice, like stupendousman and others.

I have NEVER said that is what I believe, and I have never even inferred that I think we have a choice of who or what we are attracted to.

It's hard enough to keep re-posting the same rebuttals to the same asked and answered arguments, but when I've got that plus the "strawmen" to deal with, I know I'm pretty much coming up empty on actual intellectually stimulating debate.

Really...why bother? If it takes too much effort to follow the thread, don't participate. You are wasting other people's time.

I. GIVE. UP.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's hard enough to keep re-posting the same rebuttals to the same asked and answered arguments

Could that be because your 'rebuttals' contain LOGIC FAIL? If your 'rebuttals' don't make sense, you'll have to keep pressing them. Good luck with that.

Really...why bother? If it takes too much effort to follow the thread, don't participate. You are wasting other people's time.

I. GIVE. UP.

I think people follow the thread just fine. What they don't follow is your so-called 'logic'.

I mean, if one person doesn't follow, that's one thing. But when many people don't seem to follow (and it seems to me the crowd here is pretty with-it), you might want to think about how your message is coming across.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Could that be because your 'rebuttals' contain LOGIC FAIL? If your 'rebuttals' don't make sense, you'll have to keep pressing them. Good luck with that.

If that were the case, then I'd actually get rebuttals that pointed out where the logic in my argument failed. The best I've seen are people who try, but when it's shown that the "fail" is either is something I never have argued, or isn't a fallacy at all, the debate goes around in circles to some other point that either I didn't make or which has already been debunked.

I mean, if one person doesn't follow, that's one thing. But when many people don't seem to follow (and it seems to me the crowd here is pretty with-it), you might want to think about how your message is coming across.

I don't think it's because people can't "follow". It's because they simply disagree and they can't come up with a logical reason why their argument is better. They then start spinning in circles or making up arguments they can win.

Sorry, but a rebuttal that is created either by inventing a strawman or simply offering an opinion that someone is wrong isn't pointing out failed logic. That's a lot of what I've seen here.

[besson3c]

Guys, stupendousman has no responsibility in making himself clear, we are all to blame for not being able to show him where his arguments failed. He's really good at listening to things with an open mind, we all just suck at arguing.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If that were the case, then I'd actually get rebuttals that pointed out where the logic in my argument failed. The best I've seen are people who try, but when it's shown that the "fail" is either is something I never have argued, or isn't a fallacy at all, the debate goes around in circles to some other point that either I didn't make or which has already been debunked.

I don't think it's because people can't "follow". It's because they simply disagree and they can't come up with a logical reason why their argument is better. They then start spinning in circles or making up arguments they can win.

Sorry, but a rebuttal that is created either by inventing a strawman or simply offering an opinion that someone is wrong isn't pointing out failed logic. That's a lot of what I've seen here.

I think it's because people keep pointing out the same valid rebuttals, which you refuse to accept.

First, you claimed marriage is an 'affirmative action' designed to encourage procreation. When people pointed out that people who can't, or have no intent to procreate are allowed to marry, you dismissed that inconsistency saying there was no need for checks to be that specific. Yet, in another thread talking about how the health care bill prohibited illegal aliens, you insisted that the law needed to specifically spell out who could and couldn't get care, and even the specific procedures for checking.

Let's review (sorry for the cross-quote but I think it's relevant).

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I understand that the law SAYS that they aren't eligible. The problem is that the law does not provide (and your quote does not show) ANY requirement to actually CHECK to see if the person in question IS eligible.

Illegal aliens get federally backed home loans right now from US lending institutions even though their very existence here in the United States violates federal law. This occurs because there are no legal safeguards or checks in order to ensure that those receiving help are actually even eligible to reside in the United States.

So - which is it? Should laws specifically spell out who's in or out according to their intent, or is 'close enough' OK? Your answer seems to be, 'whichever suits stupendousman's agenda'. LOGIC FAIL. Your criteria for who gets the 'affirmative action' are inconsistent and arbitrary.

After that, you seemed to backpedal a bit and say that marriage was an 'affirmative action' to provide a stable home for offspring. Fine. Why can't a male-male or female-female couple provide a stable home for offspring (of one or the other or an adoptee)? If the logic is that only a male-female couple can provide a stable environment, well, again, that's LOGIC FAIL.

So, once again, there you go. I'm sure you'll still find this difficult to accept, since your 'logic' is really just a rationalization of your preconceived notions.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Guys, stupendousman has no responsibility in making himself clear, we are all to blame for not being able to show him where his arguments failed. He's really good at listening to things with an open mind, we all just suck at arguing.

Just some of you. Particularly some in this thread!

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I have NEVER said that is what I believe, and I have never even inferred that I think we have a choice of who or what we are attracted to.

Oh, my bad. I guess this...

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Of course, the civil rights movement was about discrimination based on the color of your skin, not the content of your character or what you choose to do as Dr. King would tell us.

...is what made me think that you believe homosexuality is a choice.

So now your stance is that gay people are born that way.

Just like black people are born black, women are born women, and men are born men.



Maybe in your mind marriage is about creating a better environment in which to raise offspring.

However, to the government, marriage is about a man and a woman having certain legal rights afforded to them as a couple that two men or two women may not be afforded.

If two lesbians want to get married, all one of them has to do is a have a penis grafted onto their crotch and change their registered gender to male, and they can suddenly get married.

Sure doesn't make any sense to me.

Also: I don't get why you're using current Affirmative Action laws (e.g. concessions to racial minorities) as a reason why gay marriage should not be legalized. Affirmative Action is idiotic - it's giving special treatment to someone because of their genetic makeup. I wasn't lucky enough to be born black, so I don't get special rights when a company is trying to fill its unspoken racial hiring quota.

My coworker wasn't lucky enough to be born straight, so now she doesn't get special rights to marry the person she's been in love with for nearly twenty years.

Neither of these make any sense at all. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with having children. There are hundreds of thousands of couples in the United States who marry with no intention or ability to have children. They marry because they're in love, not because they want to squeeze out some offspring.

You married because you were in love with your wife. Not because you wanted to have children. Not because you wanted to do your part to add some more humans to an already overpopulated planet (speaking of which, the government should be encouraging gay marriage, since those couples are more likely to adopt children who actually need good homes, rather than adding to the population unnecessarily). You did it because you loved her. Children weren't part of that equation.

Yet somehow, your penis and your wife's vagina, regardless of whether or not you ever have children, entitles you to special treatment.

Because of the way you were born.

Lucky you, eh?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I think it's because people keep pointing out the same valid rebuttals, which you refuse to accept.

I don't accept the ones that actually aren't valid. Different people keep bringing up the same points, and they get shot down every time. Then a new point is brought up. It's circular arguing.

First, you claimed marriage is an 'affirmative action' designed to encourage procreation.

Here you help prove my point. I NEVER ONCE said that the affirmative action was to "encourage procreation".

In fact, I have stated that there IS NO NEED to encourage it, because it happens often times whether we plan to or not.

The problem here lies in either you not paying attention, or specifically trying to change the argument because you don't have a rebuttal for the point I actually made. Take your pick.

When people pointed out that people who can't, or have no intent to procreate are allowed to marry, you dismissed that inconsistency saying there was no need for checks to be that specific.

Because procreation will happen often times whether we plan on it, or even if we have been told previously that it's not likely to happen due to medical factors. Also because that's an inconsistent level of means testing in comparison to just about any other form of affirmative action.

Yet, in another thread talking about how the health care bill prohibited illegal aliens, you insisted that the law needed to specifically spell out who could and couldn't get care, and even the specific procedures for checking.

The difference between an expensive taxpayer funded entitlement meant for all citizens and an affirmative action program intended to generally promote something of societal interest that costs little to nothing.

So - which is it? Should laws specifically spell out who's in or out according to their intent, or is 'close enough' OK? Your answer seems to be, 'whichever suits stupendousman's agenda'. LOGIC FAIL. Your criteria for who gets the 'affirmative action' are inconsistent and arbitrary.

We aren't talking about the same types of things, so there is no reason to have to be consistent in procedures. If we are talking about two different types of affirmative actions -then sure. If we are talking about two different expensive government entitlement programs - then sure. You are comparing apples to oranges here and complaining because I don't think that all the apples should be the same color of orange. That is why your rebuttal = LOGIC FAIL.

After that, you seemed to backpedal a bit and say that marriage was an 'affirmative action' to provide a stable home for offspring.

A stable home for offspring created by the natural biological mechanism that normally occurs when men and women join together in long-term unions. That's the standard I've used though out this debate. It hasn't changed.

Fine. Why can't a male-male or female-female couple provide a stable home for offspring (of one or the other or an adoptee)?

Do they fit the standard I've given? Yes or no?

After you answer that, you can then debate whether the standard is reasonable or valid.

If the logic is that only a male-female couple can provide a stable environment, well, again, that's LOGIC FAIL.

Only a male-female couple can provide a stable biological environment for the offspring they've brought into the world that they are responsible for. Suggesting otherwise is a LOGIC FAIL.

You are correct - men and women can have kids then abandon them for others to later take care of. I'm pretty sure though if you poll any average American they will tell you that is NOT the standard they want to encourage. I'm pretty sure most Americans would say that we should do whatever we can to encourage the birth parents of a child to raise it to maturity together, in a loving home.

I'm not saying that there aren't other possibilities that could be successful. There are also a plethora of possibilities in regards to racial minorities succeeding without affirmative action help. The fact is though that it is in our best interest to encourage the optimum scenarios in forwarding societal development. Giving equal status to those who absolutely can not meet that goal devalues the worth of the affirmative action in question.

So, once again, there you go. I'm sure you'll still find this difficult to accept, since your 'logic' is really just a rationalization of your preconceived notions.

I just want to thank you in helping me to illustrate the source of my previous concerns and frustrations. You've been a model example.

[besson3c]

Yeah CreepDogg, stop coming up with arguments that stupendousman deems invalid and then maybe he will deem them valid and disagree with you anyway!

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Here you help prove my point. I NEVER ONCE said that the affirmative action was to "encourage procreation".

In fact, I have stated that there IS NO NEED to encourage it, because it happens often times whether we plan to or not.

OK, so then why have marriage at all, and why arbitrarily limit it if it's not for procreation?

The problem here lies in either you not paying attention, or specifically trying to change the argument because you don't have a rebuttal for the point I actually made. Take your pick.

If you had a point to actually make, I'd be happy to rebut it. All you have now is LOGIC FAIL.

Because procreation will happen often times whether we plan on it, or even if we have been told previously that it's not likely to happen due to medical factors. Also because that's an inconsistent level of means testing in comparison to just about any other form of affirmative action.

So the point of marriage is to encourage procreation? You just said you never said that. Now who's arguing in circles?

The difference between an expensive taxpayer funded entitlement meant for all citizens and an affirmative action program intended to generally promote something of societal interest that costs little to nothing.

Why? There's a cost to the government's bottom line in each case? Seems consistent to me.

And if there were no cost to the government for marriage, why should they restrict who can do it at all?

We aren't talking about the same types of things, so there is no reason to have to be consistent in procedures. If we are talking about two different types of affirmative actions -then sure. If we are talking about two different expensive government entitlement programs - then sure. You are comparing apples to oranges here and complaining because I don't think that all the apples should be the same color of orange. That is why your rebuttal = LOGIC FAIL.

Riiight. See above. Whatever suits your agenda...

A stable home for offspring created by the natural biological mechanism that normally occurs when men and women join together in long-term unions. That's the standard I've used though out this debate. It hasn't changed.

What 'natural biological mechanism'? The one that disintegrates 50% of the time? Your standard, once again, is inconsistent and arbitrary, which is why you have LOGIC FAIL.

Do they fit the standard I've given? Yes or no?

The standard you've given doesn't exist. Can they provide a stable environment for offspring, wherever they came from? Yes or no?

After you answer that, you can then debate whether the standard is reasonable or valid.

As I said, I start with whether the standard even exists.

Only a male-female couple can provide a stable biological environment for the offspring they've brought into the world that they are responsible for. Suggesting otherwise is a LOGIC FAIL.

What the hell is a 'stable biological environment'? An incubator?

You're right, I can't suggest otherwise because this is complete nonsense. However, if you remove the word 'biological', then your assertion is simply not true, and there are thousands of stable single-parent, double-mom, and double-dad families to prove you wrong.

You are correct - men and women can have kids then abandon them for others to later take care of. I'm pretty sure though if you poll any average American they will tell you that is NOT the standard they want to encourage. I'm pretty sure most Americans would say that we should do whatever we can to encourage the birth parents of a child to raise it to maturity together, in a loving home.

Let's assume for a moment this is true. Even if so, what does it have to do with allowing homosexuals to marry?

I'm not saying that there aren't other possibilities that could be successful. There are also a plethora of possibilities in regards to racial minorities succeeding without affirmative action help. The fact is though that it is in our best interest to encourage the optimum scenarios in forwarding societal development. Giving equal status to those who absolutely can not meet that goal devalues the worth of the affirmative action in question.

This is where you show your true colors. You have an arbitrary definition in your mind of 'optimum scenario'. So do I - stable homes for families who love each other and want to be with each other. So - if I'm allowed my definition of 'optimum scenario', I agree with your statement.

I just want to thank you in helping me to illustrate the source of my previous concerns and frustrations. You've been a model example.

Good, glad I could help. I think you'd get a lot more credibility and acceptance if you just came out and said, 'I don't like gay people and I don't think they should have the same rights as me with regard to marriage'. Instead, you try to pass your opinion off as some sort of optimal logical conclusion, and when people see through your BS, you ignore their concerns and/or cry foul. Want to be taken seriously? Just state your opinion. You're entitled to it! But don't try to pass it off as something it's not. I know you'll dig yourself a hole as deep as you need to, but it really doesn't make you any more credible.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

So now your stance is that gay people are born that way.

Just like black people are born black, women are born women, and men are born men.

...or people who prefer to steal instead of work may have been born that way. Could be some sort of chemical imbalance. I don't know.

As I've stated, you can have all kinds of preferences, likes, dislikes and desires - none of which you likely actively choose. What you do choose is what you do about them. Attracted to children? If you are, I can't discriminate against you unless you choose to act on that attraction. You are free from discrimination unless you choose to do something that your peers find to be societally unacceptable.

We can be discriminated against based on what we choose to do, not what's inside our heads. Technology simply hasn't advanced to the point where people can be discriminated against just because of what they are thinking in their heads.

However, to the government, marriage is about a man and a woman having certain legal rights afforded to them as a couple that two men or two women may not be afforded.

...with a valid reason, as I've explained.

If two lesbians want to get married, all one of them has to do is a have a penis grafted onto their crotch and change their registered gender to male, and they can suddenly get married.

Sure doesn't make any sense to me.

That doesn't make sense to me either, since that woman isn't really a man any more than I'd be a dog if I chose to bark, eat Alpo and have a tail grafted to my behind. I'm not sure why the law would allow someone pretending to be something because they suffered from some kind of mental condition legal protection as that thing. If I did the dog bit, would the laws require me to get rabies shots and stay on a leash?

Also: I don't get why you're using current Affirmative Action laws (e.g. concessions to racial minorities) as a reason why gay marriage should not be legalized. Affirmative Action is idiotic - it's giving special treatment to someone because of their genetic makeup. I wasn't lucky enough to be born black, so I don't get special rights when a company is trying to fill its unspoken racial hiring quota.

I'm actually against quotas. That's another debate. There simply isn't anything wrong with setting up laws to try ensure that certain people or groups are encouraged to be able to do their best when there is a great societal interest or past history of there being obstacles put in their way that makes it hard for them to do so. It harms no one when we develop programs that make sure certain minorities aren't being overlooked for jobs because of discrimination. In defending affirmative action programs, I'm not suggesting that lesser qualified groups or individuals should be given something they aren't qualified for over more qualified people.

My coworker wasn't lucky enough to be born straight, so now she doesn't get special rights to marry the person she's been in love with for nearly twenty years.

I wasn't lucky enough to be born tall, so now I won't get special rights to play basketball on TV and earn millions of dollars. My friend was born without a leg. He won't be given special rights by the military to be a paratrooper like he always wanted to be.

I really feel for people who were born with some kind of handicap that doesn't allow them to achieve what others might be able to accomplish, but that's just part of life.

Neither of these make any sense at all. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with having children.

..and yet, the vast majority of those who marry end up finding themselves with children. A huge number who cohabitate long term but decide not to get married find themselves with children as well. AMAZING!!!!

The goal of recognizing "marriage" is so that those people who put themselves in a position where they either are having, or quite possibly may end up having children are put in a scenario where they are most likely to stay together and raise those children.

You married because you were in love with your wife. Not because you wanted to have children.

True. It is the societal norm for men and women in love who decide to join together in a long-term union, the type that normally results in offspring, to get married. Since I met all the criteria, I went ahead and did it.

The government really could care less who I loved though. They really only have an interest since children were likely to soon be part of the scenario, and by gosh the Government's bet paid off

Lucky you, eh?

I tell myself that everyday!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

OK, so then why have marriage at all, and why arbitrarily limit it if it's not for procreation?

So the point of marriage is to encourage procreation? You just said you never said that. Now who's arguing in circles?

Creepdog. I'm about to the point of "writing you off". I hope that doesn't hurt your feelings, but it's too frustrating typing out the same things over and over.

A. I explained why to have "marriage". It encourages people who will VERY LIKELY HAVE OFFSPRING (something that doesn't need encouragement) TO STAY TOGETHER AND RAISE THEM DUE TO THE SPECIAL STATUS THEY ARE GIVEN IN DOING SO.

B. You quote me explaining that procreation needs no encouragement and will happen automatically, and yet you still claim my argument is that procreation needs encouragement.

THAT IS LOGIC FAIL. If you can't even repeat the argument correctly after having it explained to you, you aren't going to be able to rebut the point.

I'll explain slowly...

1. Men and woman who decide to cohabitate long-term almost always have sex. No encouragement is necessary for this to happen. Human nature ensures that sex will occur.

2. The odds are quite high that people who have sex over a long period of time will have offspring, whether they plan on it or not. Statistics prove this out. Otherwise, there would be no "unwanted" children in the world and abortion would be pretty much unnecessary. No encouragement is necessary for procreation to happen. It just does.

3. When people are at the stage that 1 and 2 are in place, it's in the government's interest to acknowledge the biological facts of what's going on, and give special status to those who would decide to stay together in a way that shares responsibility for what the two people have or likely to soon have created, and take part in raising their offspring to maturity. There is a very pressing need to encourage men and women in relationships to continue to raise their offspring in a loving home. Single parent situations are at a disadvantage societally and abandoning children to be left with non-biological parents is not the optimum standard.

Here we have a scenario that happens almost every time, where there is an important societal interest, that has absolutely nothing to do with "love" or homosexual unions.

Now...if you can form an argument against that using my actual points and what I've actually said I'd be glad to debate. If you either change my argument, try to twist it, or engage in some kind of apples to oranges comparisons, I'm not really interested.

[Dork.]

I follow your logic for stage 1. I also follow your logic for stage 2, although I will tell you (not from experience! ) that even people who have sex over a short period of time (and maybe have no intention of co-habitating) may have offspring, as well. Lucky them!

I think Stage 3 is where it falls apart. The Government gives certain rights and benefits involving marriage to the two people involved, and they give further rights and benefits of parenthood to parents. You are lumping them all together and saying that the special status conferred by marriage is tied to parenting rights because they are both meant to encourage couples to stay together for the sake of raising children. That was probably why the State got into the business of sanctioning marriages in the first place, after all. But in the real world, not all parents are married, and no matter what the original intent of state-sanctioned marriage was, the State must recognize this if they truly want to encourage responsible parenthood.

So there is special status conferred to married couples, and different special status conferred to parents. If the married couple has children of their own, those lucky people gain both special statuses. If we can convince Tom Brady to post on this board, we can have a perspective from someone who has the marriage "special status" with one woman, but the parent "special status" with another.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Creepdog. I'm about to the point of "writing you off". I hope that doesn't hurt your feelings, but it's too frustrating typing out the same things over and over.

Nope. I've got thick skin. Do what you must.

A. I explained why to have "marriage". It encourages people who will VERY LIKELY HAVE OFFSPRING (something that doesn't need encouragement) TO STAY TOGETHER AND RAISE THEM DUE TO THE SPECIAL STATUS THEY ARE GIVEN IN DOING SO.

B. You quote me explaining that procreation needs no encouragement and will happen automatically, and yet you still claim my argument is that procreation needs encouragement.

THAT IS LOGIC FAIL. If you can't even repeat the argument correctly after having it explained to you, you aren't going to be able to rebut the point.

I'll explain slowly...

1. Men and woman who decide to cohabitate long-term almost always have sex. No encouragement is necessary for this to happen. Human nature ensures that sex will occur.

2. The odds are quite high that people who have sex over a long period of time will have offspring, whether they plan on it or not. Statistics prove this out. Otherwise, there would be no "unwanted" children in the world and abortion would be pretty much unnecessary. No encouragement is necessary for procreation to happen. It just does.

3. When people are at the stage that 1 and 2 are in place, it's in the government's interest to acknowledge the biological facts of what's going on, and give special status to those who would decide to stay together in a way that shares responsibility for what the two people have or likely to soon have created, and take part in raising their offspring to maturity. There is a very pressing need to encourage men and women in relationships to continue to raise their offspring in a loving home. Single parent situations are at a disadvantage societally and abandoning children to be left with non-biological parents is not the optimum standard.

Here we have a scenario that happens almost every time, where there is an important societal interest, that has absolutely nothing to do with "love" or homosexual unions.

Now...if you can form an argument against that using my actual points and what I've actually said I'd be glad to debate. If you either change my argument, try to twist it, or engage in some kind of apples to oranges comparisons, I'm not really interested.

First of all, your 'standard' is that marriage is for people who can procreate to stay together to provide a stable environment for their offspring. OK. Which is more important - the fact that they can procreate or the fact that they provide a stable environment? Why would society not ALSO want to encourage others to come/stay together to provide a stable environment for unwanted offspring of others (which, by the way, is every bit as inevitable as people who cohabitate having sex)? The fact that in your mind, you're attaching the criterion about needing to be able to procreate shows your bias, and proves your standard to be arbitrary. I can create an equally logical standard that includes homosexuals. The fact that you're unable to accept this really isn't my problem.

Second, if you are including the ability to procreate in your standard, then YES, you ARE inferring that the point of marriage is to encourage procreation. Claiming you're not is in fact a circular argument. And - if a requirement for marriage is a need, or even likelihood to procreate, then why would a society have a means test that doesn't evaluate that likelihood? Why can sterile, past-menopause, or whatever, people be allowed to marry, when they are the OPPOSITE of being likely to procreate? It's just as easy a means test as being heterosexual. Either the ability to procreate is important to you or not. If it is, then you better tighten up your standards on who can marry. If it isn't, well, then, your argument falls down completely. Which is it?

Like it or not, your argument has been rebutted. Not just by me. You're welcome to ignore it, write me off, write everyone off, whatever. Whining about being misunderstood or having to repeat yourself isn't going to change that, though. You've crafted your 'standard', such as it is, with the express purpose of keeping homosexuals out. When others point out flaws in your 'standard', you dismiss those as unimportant. That's your opinion, which is fine, but that also means that your whole 'standard' is nothing more than your opinion. I can live with that. What I don't accept is you trying to pass your opinion off as something more than what it is.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I follow your logic for stage 1. I also follow your logic for stage 2, although I will tell you (not from experience! ) that even people who have sex over a short period of time (and maybe have no intention of co-habitating) may have offspring, as well. Lucky them!

I think Stage 3 is where it falls apart. The Government gives certain rights and benefits involving marriage to the two people involved, and they give further rights and benefits of parenthood to parents. You are lumping them all together and saying that the special status conferred by marriage is tied to parenting rights because they are both meant to encourage couples to stay together for the sake of raising children. That was probably why the State got into the business of sanctioning marriages in the first place, after all. But in the real world, not all parents are married, and no matter what the original intent of state-sanctioned marriage was, the State must recognize this if they truly want to encourage responsible parenthood.

So there is special status conferred to married couples, and different special status conferred to parents. If the married couple has children of their own, those lucky people gain both special statuses. If we can convince Tom Brady to post on this board, we can have a perspective from someone who has the marriage "special status" with one woman, but the parent "special status" with another.

Not to mention, Stage 2 produces 2 inevitabilities: first, that men and women will produce offspring. And second, that some of those offspring will be unwanted.

Now, what's the optimal outcome for that unwanted offspring? Mine would be the provision of a stable home environment with parents (non-biological, if need be) that love them. So, if Stage 3 is about encouraging the provision of a stable environment for inevitable offspring, why limit it to only 'wanted' offspring? Why do only they get the benefit of a 'special status'? Why not confer 'special status' on ANYONE willing to create a stable environment to provide the maximum societal benefit? What did the unwanted offspring do to not deserve the benefit of the 'special status'?

[placebo1969]

So, I see this thread title about "Obama's war with Fox News" and decide to click on the last page first.

I guess since it seems obvious that the White House seems to be "acting stupidly" by going after Fox News, you started talking about other things.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...with a valid reason, as I've explained.

Honey, that reason is valid in your eyes alone, at least around here. The rest of us are actually able to see through the veil of stupidity and realize that (a) people marry for love, not children, (b) homosexuals simply want the same legal rights as the rest of the country, and (c) a childless marriage is no less valid to the government than Jim and Michelle Dugger and their eleventy thousand children.

The goal of recognizing "marriage" is so that those people who put themselves in a position where they either are having, or quite possibly may end up having children are put in a scenario where they are most likely to stay together and raise those children.

You know, other things that the government permits us to do - like driving - have negative repercussions when you don't follow through with the expectations. Driving comes with the responsibility of doing so safely. Failing to fulfill that responsibility gets you anywhere from a speeding ticket to having your driver's license permanently revoked.

You seem to think that marriage comes with the responsibility or expectation of having children. Why should those who choose not to fulfill this expectation be permitted to stay married?

You say that homosexuality is an easy filter to prevent people who are incapable of fulfilling their societal obligation to procreate from getting married. Wouldn't the same filtering mechanism work on other groups of people who can't have children - like those who are born sterile, or those with debilitating medical conditions that prevent them from getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant, or those who are simply too old to be fertile? Why are you not also calling for these demographic groups to be banned from federally-recognized marriage unions?

True. It is the societal norm for men and women in love who decide to join together in a long-term union, the type that normally results in offspring, to get married. Since I met all the criteria, I went ahead and did it.

You need to separate "long term union" from "results in offspring". The two are not interdependent; that much is quite clear.

Societal norms change. We cannot enforce laws based on changing or evolving societal norms. It used to be the societal norm that interracial marriages were completely condemned by the general public. That changed, did it not? It used to be the societal norm for women to not work or vote. It used to be the societal norm for children to work on mom and dad's farm from a young age, prior to the industrial revolution.

Shall we make laws that rely on these obsolete societal norms as well?

The government really could care less who I loved though. They really only have an interest since children were likely to soon be part of the scenario, and by gosh the Government's bet paid off

Funnily enough, a homosexual couple who adopts a child would be able to fulfill that exact same obligation you seem to think comes with a federally-sanctioned marriage.

I tell myself that everyday!

Yes, I'm sure you think to yourself, "hell, I sure am glad that I was born straight so that I can actually legitimately marry my partner!"

People are popping out babies just fine without any need to be married first. People who are married and subsequently squeeze out some offspring are getting divorced at an alarming rate. I don't see any statistical information that proves that the legalization of gay marriage would have a measurable impact on the annual childbirth rate in the United States.

[Wiskedjak]

I think it's pretty clear that stupendousman's "marriage should be reserved for those able to produce children" argument is a sham.

- He's willing to argue to ban homosexuals from marriage on the basis that they can't produce children, but he's unwilling to extend that ban to heterosexual couples who are unable to produce children.
- He wants to use marriage to promote the raising of children, but he's unwilling to ban from marriage heterosexual couple who choose not to have children. He contends that this is OK because he believes that most marriages result in children, regardless of the couple's intent (he's clearly unfamiliar with birth control and surgical methods of preventing pregnancy).

[besson3c]

When was it last in society's best interest to grow the population anyway?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

or engage in some kind of apples to oranges comparisons, I'm not really interested.

Really?

Let's compare two couples: one is homosexual, the other is heterosexual and both partners are physiologically sterile for whatever reason.

How are they the same?

Both couples involve two consenting adults who are in love with each other.
Both couples want to have certain legal rights that are only afforded to unions sanctioned by their federal government.
Both couples are incapable of having and/or raising children without some kind of third party intervening.
Both couples can easily be classified into a certain demographic based on what are arguably genetic traits (homosexuality and sterility).
Both couples can be easily filtered by the federal government based on that criteria in order to determine marriage eligibility.

How are they different?

One couple involves two sets of same genitalia. The other couple involves one set each of opposite genitalia.

The only way that your argument holds any water whatsoever is if you can honestly agree that a heterosexual couple who is wholly incapable of producing offspring should be equally prohibited from acquiring a government-recognized marriage license.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

When was it last in society's best interest to grow the population anyway?

Well, if you look at the crippling impact the retirement of baby boomers is having and going to have on social security and medicare...

But that's an entirely different discussion.

In this particular line of rationalization, marriage and children are not mutually dependent. The United States government does not, in 2009, grant marriage licenses to couples with the expectation or hope that those couples will produce offspring. A marriage license and the legal benefits of a marriage have nothing to do with the legal benefits of having a child, given that a single, unmarried person can claim a tax deduction on a child. THAT, along with things like welfare eligibility for single mothers and other BS, is an incentive to have a child. A marriage license doesn't come into that equation at all.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Because procreation will happen often times whether we plan on it, or even if we have been told previously that it's not likely to happen due to medical factors. Also because that's an inconsistent level of means testing in comparison to just about any other form of affirmative action.

So a seventy-year-old couple who wants to get married and finish out their lives together might still be able to have children?

Oh, and a quadriplegic who is incapable of having sex can either get a woman pregnant or carry a child to term?

Of course, you have to count the thousands of women who have to have their ovaries removed due to PCS and other diseases, because I can guarantee you a thousand percent that a woman with no eggs has no physical way of getting pregnant.

Same goes for men who lost their nuts due to testicular cancer. And women who have hysterectomies for a wide variety of reasons.

Of course, a person who has gender reassignment surgery is completely incapable of biologically producing offspring, unless they had their sperm or eggs harvested and preserved before they underwent hormone therapy.

However, oddly, that person who voluntarily changed their gender is more eligible for marriage rights simply because of what's between their legs.

If marriage, in the eyes of the government, is about having children, why can unmarried people get the exact same legal and tax benefits that come with having children? Shouldn't the government force a single mother to get married before she can deduct her child as a dependent on her taxes, or apply for the earned income credit because her income is so low?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Same goes for men who lost their nuts due to testicular cancer.

A very close friend of mine just underwent treatment for testicular cancer. He didn't lose his nut. He knows exactly where it went.

If marriage, in the eyes of the government, is about having children, why can unmarried people get the exact same legal and tax benefits that come with having children? Shouldn't the government force a single mother to get married before she can deduct her child as a dependent on her taxes, or apply for the earned income credit because her income is so low?

What about the right for a brother and sister to get married or first cousins? Is it just more fashionable to support gay rights?

Is this why Obama is at war with Fox News? Because he opposes the rights for gays to get married?

[Dork.]

Stop trying to derail the thread about Fox News by talking about Fox News! Unless you think Fox News is gay, don't bring it up here!

(I think the last time Obama and Fox came up here was on Page 3, btw).

Your question is an interesting one, since I do know people who are for calling to make all marriages Civil Unions precisely so that related people can form a civil union without having the stigma of being called "married".

IMHO, one of the important functions of marriage is establishing kinship outside of blood relatives. When I got married, my wife became immediately legally eligible to make all sorts of decisions on my behalf if I should become incapacitated, and she would inherit my estate automatically should I pass away without a will. She gets this right even if my parents are still living.
I believe this status should be available to gay people just as automatically, especially because a gay couple's natural kin may not be so approving of their lifestyle, and might just shut the partner out of any inheritance claim. Even if the gay couple leaves a will, it can be challenged by the family without this protection.

Siblings or cousins who decide to live together don't quite have this problem, because kinship is already established. They may even already be next of kin if they are older and everyone else has passed, but even if they are not, it is still easier to set this up, because the number of people who might have a higher claim on the estate (and thus contest the will) are much smaller.

I kind of jumped through hoops to justify this, but it makes more sense to me than stupendousman's logic....

[BadKosh]

The pairing of men and women has been going on longer than civilization. It was organically driven. As civilization evolved from being packs of humans into the hunter gatherers and the transition from being nomads into holding land and producing crops, we became more socialized, with different roles, the pairing of men and women continued. Religious ceremonies developed. It seems we were meant to operate this way. Ancestors were important, which may have made the difference between single mates and multiple mates. Ignoring the biological history in favor of deviant relationships really looks like selfish behavior than any evolutionary process.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Stop trying to derail the thread about Fox News by talking about Fox News! Unless you think Fox News is gay, don't bring it up here!

(I think the last time Obama and Fox came up here was on Page 3, btw).

I feel ya. I figured I'd try to at least tie Obama back into this in some capacity since he is also opposed to gay marriage and I'm not hearing the same indictments of "homophobe" etc... lodged against him.

IMHO, one of the important functions of marriage is establishing kinship outside of blood relatives. When I got married, my wife became immediately legally eligible to make all sorts of decisions on my behalf if I should become incapacitated, and she would inherit my estate automatically should I pass away without a will. She gets this right even if my parents are still living.
I believe this status should be available to gay people just as automatically, especially because a gay couple's natural kin may not be so approving of their lifestyle, and might just shut the partner out of any inheritance claim. Even if the gay couple leaves a will, it can be challenged by the family without this protection.

There are laws of "domestic partnerships" in California that were not in jeopardy with Prop 8, but Prop 8 was still opposed vehemently by proponents of gay rights. It infringed on none of their rights and in fact reiterated them, but was opposed. I understand your point related to kin, but many have more than one sibling, more than one family member. Because they are not married and likewise potentially without a will, there's nothing to ensure their estate goes to their "loved one" just because they lived together. They are essentially "denied the same rights" as gays. It seems those who are arguing for "marriage rights" avoid what they may consider more taboo.

Siblings or cousins who decide to live together don't quite have this problem, because kinship is already established. They may even already be next of kin if they are older and everyone else has passed, but even if they are not, it is still easier to set this up, because the number of people who might have a higher claim on the estate (and thus contest the will) are much smaller.

If it were challenged by another sibling who wants part of the estate and can establish that the two other kin were in a committed, loving relationship, this may render that relationship in fact- illegal and cause even more trouble for the loving couple.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

You are lumping them all together and saying that the special status conferred by marriage is tied to parenting rights because they are both meant to encourage couples to stay together for the sake of raising children. That was probably why the State got into the business of sanctioning marriages in the first place, after all.

My point. Agreed.

But in the real world, not all parents are married, and no matter what the original intent of state-sanctioned marriage was, the State must recognize this if they truly want to encourage responsible parenthood.

Not all parents are married. True. We don't need to give them special status for their inability to commit to one another legally or stay together to raise their children as should be their responsibility. That is why there is "different special status."

So there is special status conferred to married couples, and different special status conferred to parents.

Yes. We don't need to give the same status to a man and a woman who chose not to raise their children in their home together or abandon their responsibility all together. We have a societal incentive to set up the right framework from the get go, so that when men and woman do become parents (the statistical norm), they will more likely raise them together in a loving home.

If the married couple has children of their own, those lucky people gain both special statuses. If we can convince Tom Brady to post on this board, we can have a perspective from someone who has the marriage "special status" with one woman, but the parent "special status" with another.

Apparently he and this other woman now have non-miraculously (as it's the norm) found themselves with child after deciding to unite long-term together. He never married the first girl (rumor has it that she got pregnant to keep him around), and as such did not get the special marriage status with her. He didn't have the incentive to stay together with her to raise his child, and did not. You help illustrate my point. Thanks.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

First of all, your 'standard' is that marriage is for people who can procreate to stay together to provide a stable environment for their offspring.

Argument Recital Failure #127:

My standard is that it's for a man and a woman who unite long-term. The fact is that the vast majority of these people do procreate whether they plan to or not. You may not think that's an important difference, but it is. It's like saying your standard for racial affirmative action is for people who have been discriminated against because of their race, when it's really for any racial minority since they are statistically most likely to face racial discrimination. Big difference.

OK. Which is more important - the fact that they can procreate or the fact that they provide a stable environment? Why would society not ALSO want to encourage others to come/stay together to provide a stable environment for unwanted offspring of others (which, by the way, is every bit as inevitable as people who cohabitate having sex)? The fact that in your mind, you're attaching the criterion about needing to be able to procreate shows your bias, and proves your standard to be arbitrary. I can create an equally logical standard that includes homosexuals. The fact that you're unable to accept this really isn't my problem.

My standard does rule anything out. Even with my standard, people who aren't married can still raise children if they choose. Though, I believe that most people would agree with the idea that the goal for men and woman who have children should be to be responsible and raise those children together, which would provide their children with loving in-home male and female role models. You don't have to been given special status as "married" to care for a child. The current epidemic of single-parenthood proves that.

The standard "marriage" seeks to grant status for has been the societal norm for quite some time. Only more recently, with attacks from liberal forces, has it become less prevalent that it has in the past. An agenda which pushes sex without responsibility - and as such children suffering through single parentage (which has clear disadvantages from the norm) or never being born at all, "gay marriage" which teaches us that marriage is just a convenience put together due to how we may feel emotionally at one time (eliminating the traditional procreation aspect of marriage), and "no fault divorce" which makes it easy to get in and out when you just didn't take the effort to be responsible with a choice that is supposed to be life-long.

Now, I'm not saying that divorce should be outlawed or that people who love one another shouldn't show their devotion in some way. I'm just saying that recent history supports the idea that the more you marginalize marriage as an emotional convenience, the more it becomes JUST THAT and results in children being raised without two loving male/female in-home role models (the traditional norm).

Second, if you are including the ability to procreate in your standard, then YES, you ARE inferring that the point of marriage is to encourage procreation. Claiming you're not is in fact a circular argument.

See above. It's not the "standard". People who end up for some reason not being able to procreate still apply, the same as wealthy racial minorities who haven't failed at succeeding because of discrimination.

And - if a requirement for marriage is a need, or even likelihood to procreate, then why would a society have a means test that doesn't evaluate that likelihood?

It's the statistical norm. Most all men and woman who come together in a relationship which would be suitable for "marriage" will end up procreating. The same as racial affirmative action, once you meet the basic criteria, you don't need to further means test as it would be intrusive and difficult. Even in racial affirmative action if you could prove the person in question didn't really need the help, society is still getting a benefit by having the standard apply to all minorities. All racial minorities will know that they have been given a status which requires others to ensure that they haven't been discriminated against and will have more confidence that the most qualified person (if done properly) gets the job regards of skin color.

If a man and a woman end up not being able to procreate, they still set up a situation where they can provide an almost identical man/woman/child living unit to help ensure that children born without responsible parents can live in a way that is least disruptive and closely match to those of their peers.

Like it or not, your argument has been rebutted.

Not very successfully, in my opinion.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Now, what's the optimal outcome for that unwanted offspring? Mine would be the provision of a stable home environment with parents (non-biological, if need be) that love them.

Which traditional marriage STILL provides. Those who marry who find themselves unable to procreate but wish to have children can provide near identical family units as the "norm", ensuring children won't have to live at an disadvantage by being viewed differently by their peers or only have a single in-home gender role model.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Honey, that reason is valid in your eyes alone, at least around here. The rest of us are actually able to see through the veil of stupidity and realize that (a) people marry for love, not children

People do lots of things for lots of reasons. Some people fake balloon abductions to get a reality TV series. I don't think we can logically base government approval or affirmative action just based on what someone likes to do. There is no real government incentive to endorse "love". None. There is no department of "love" or council on "loving relations".

There are however a huge number of government departments and a vast amount of taxpayer financed resources put forth for the government interest as far as what happens when two people who get together in a manner than normally create offsprings. The government has made it clear due to it's allocation of resources that what happens after we procreate is a vital societal interest. It has shown no such interest in who we love.

You can do whatever you like - but unless there's a government interest you really shouldn't expect (or want) them to get involved. What is sought is government forced societal approval for non-equal things to be treated equally. That makes little sense.

Funnily enough, a homosexual couple who adopts a child would be able to fulfill that exact same obligation you seem to think comes with a federally-sanctioned marriage.

A mom and a dad in a stable, loving home? Really?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I think it's pretty clear that stupendousman's "marriage should be reserved for those able to produce children" argument is a sham.

Especially since that's never been his argument!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

When was it last in society's best interest to grow the population anyway?

Who said it was?

I doubt anyone has sex thinking they are doing it to grow the population.

The question is what are we going to do when it inevitably happens? Should we put into place a social structure that rewards people for being responsible? We have, and I think we should continue doing so.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I doubt anyone has sex thinking they are doing it to grow the population..

Clearly you haven't been to Salt Lake City.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Really?

Let's compare two couples: one is homosexual, the other is heterosexual and both partners are physiologically sterile for whatever reason.

The first thing is HOW DO YOU KNOW FOR SURE, in regards to what we are talking about here?

You've never met a couple that were told they were "sterile" only later to have kids without even trying? I know of several myself.

Unless you are going to force some kind of financially prohibitive tests that are unreliable and/or find someone who doesn't even have the sex organs needed to reproduce, you would not be able to disqualify someone definitively as "sterile" in a male/female relationship.

I can with a 100% guarantee assure you that two homosexuals will never reproduce without any expensive tests or unreliable results.

That is a BIG DIFFERENCE at the get go. HUGE.

How are they the same?

Both couples involve two consenting adults who are in love with each other.
Both couples want to have certain legal rights that are only afforded to unions sanctioned by their federal government.

..which can be done legally via other means.

Both couples are incapable of having and/or raising children without some kind of third party intervening.

See above. Not practical to determine.

Both couples can easily be classified into a certain demographic based on what are arguably genetic traits (homosexuality and sterility).
Both couples can be easily filtered by the federal government based on that criteria in order to determine marriage eligibility

No, they can't be. Before someone chooses to get married, you can not easily filter them as sterile. Even after years of trying unsuccessfully, you still really can't always filter someone as "sterile".

How are they different?

One couple involves two sets of same genitalia. The other couple involves one set each of opposite genitalia.

You forgot one important way they are different, and of course lets remember we are talking about a small minority of humans who may be sterile....

One couple can give a child without parents essentially the same rearing and parental arrangement that the rest of their peers born to the majority of parents who are not sterile can. Of course, that doesn't mean that those with the same genitalia are incapable of raising children, anymore than someone without arms or legs couldn't raise a child. The question is what standard do we want to encourage? If given a choice and all things being equal, would we want a child to be raised by a parent without all their limbs, or would it be exactly the same if they had none? Of course, it's much more of a challenge to do the latter and we'd all choose the former. The same should be the case in regards to this issue as well.

The only way that your argument holds any water whatsoever is if you can honestly agree that a heterosexual couple who is wholly incapable of producing offspring should be equally prohibited from acquiring a government-recognized marriage license.

See above. My argument holds water without your restriction.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Clearly you haven't been to Salt Lake City.

Touche'

[ort888]

Two guys kissing each other is icky.

I think that's really what this really boils down to.

[olePigeon]

Yeah, but two (hot) girls kissing each other is hot.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Two guys kissing each other is icky.

I think that's really what this really boils down to.

I could care less what two guys do.

I just don't think that the government should be giving them special status because they decide they want to kiss for a long time. I can't see the interest in it like I could if that kissing would likely result in those two guys adding more taxpayers/burdens to the government rolls. No matter how long those guys poke their tongues in each other's mouths, there's not going to be any new government interests created.

[ort888]

How does it create any sort of burden on society or the taxpayer? How does homosexuals getting married effect your life in any way?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

How does it create any sort of burden on society or the taxpayer? How does homosexuals getting married effect your life in any way?

You've not read a single post to this this thread, other then yours, right?

[ort888]

Not really. I go back about 5 posts.

Before that it just looks like the Vietnam Memorial, but instead of a wall of names, it's a dense wall of text full of circular bickering between people who will never change each others minds.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Argument Recital Failure #127:

My standard is that it's for a man and a woman who unite long-term. The fact is that the vast majority of these people do procreate whether they plan to or not. You may not think that's an important difference, but it is.

So is it important to your standard that they procreate? Yes or no?

It's like saying your standard for racial affirmative action is for people who have been discriminated against because of their race, when it's really for any racial minority since they are statistically most likely to face racial discrimination. Big difference.

OK, so if you're going to expand the standard for marriage affirmative action, why limit it to opposite sexes? Again, is it part of the standard that they can procreate, or not?

My standard does rule anything out.

Yep.

Even with my standard, people who aren't married can still raise children if they choose. Though, I believe that most people would agree with the idea that the goal for men and woman who have children should be to be responsible and raise those children together, which would provide their children with loving in-home male and female role models. You don't have to been given special status as "married" to care for a child. The current epidemic of single-parenthood proves that.

OK, so procreating isn't important. Or is it?

The standard "marriage" seeks to grant status for has been the societal norm for quite some time.

As was slavery about 150 years ago. What's your point? Now we're realizing we're leaving roughly 10% of the population out. I think that's worth looking at with a fresh approach.

Only more recently, with attacks from liberal forces, has it become less prevalent that it has in the past. An agenda which pushes sex without responsibility - and as such children suffering through single parentage (which has clear disadvantages from the norm)

Um, wouldn't allowing more people to marry reduce the number of children 'suffering through single parentage'? Also, what is the 'norm', given that the divorce rate is about 50%?

or never being born at all, "gay marriage" which teaches us that marriage is just a convenience put together due to how we may feel emotionally at one time (eliminating the traditional procreation aspect of marriage),

OK, now procreation is important. Boy, we're really going in circles here - just in 2-3 paragraphs!

and "no fault divorce" which makes it easy to get in and out when you just didn't take the effort to be responsible with a choice that is supposed to be life-long.

Now, I'm not saying that divorce should be outlawed or that people who love one another shouldn't show their devotion in some way.

OK, then I recommend you strike this since this has absolutely nothing to do with who is allowed to marry.

I'm just saying that recent history supports the idea that the more you marginalize marriage as an emotional convenience, the more it becomes JUST THAT and results in children being raised without two loving male/female in-home role models (the traditional norm).

I think it marginalizes marriage more by excluding roughly 10% of people from the opportunity to do it based on arbitrary criteria.

See above. It's not the "standard". People who end up for some reason not being able to procreate still apply, the same as wealthy racial minorities who haven't failed at succeeding because of discrimination.

OK, well, now we're back to procreation not being important. So, if people who end up not being able to procreate still apply, how do you justify excluding homosexuals? They simply fall into that group.

It's the statistical norm. Most all men and woman who come together in a relationship which would be suitable for "marriage" will end up procreating. The same as racial affirmative action, once you meet the basic criteria, you don't need to further means test as it would be intrusive and difficult. Even in racial affirmative action if you could prove the person in question didn't really need the help, society is still getting a benefit by having the standard apply to all minorities. All racial minorities will know that they have been given a status which requires others to ensure that they haven't been discriminated against and will have more confidence that the most qualified person (if done properly) gets the job regards of skin color.

OK - well, my 'basic criteria' for the means test would be two people who love each other and willingly commit to each other. Period. What makes your 'basic criteria' better than mine? Since we're not checking for a clear ability to procreate, it's obviously not that.

If a man and a woman end up not being able to procreate, they still set up a situation where they can provide an almost identical man/woman/child living unit to help ensure that children born without responsible parents can live in a way that is least disruptive and closely match to those of their peers.

And if a homosexual couple end up not being able to procreate, they still set up a situation where they can provide an almost identical man/man/child or woman/woman child living unit to help ensure that children born without responsible parents that is least disruptive and closely match to those of their peers. (Seeing as how a significant portion of their peers live with single parents or blended families).

It's no different. You may think it is, but it's not.

You seem to think it's 'sub-optimal', which I just think is bigoted.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which traditional marriage STILL provides. Those who marry who find themselves unable to procreate but wish to have children can provide near identical family units as the "norm", ensuring children won't have to live at an disadvantage by being viewed differently by their peers or only have a single in-home gender role model.

As would a homosexual marriage.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Before that it just looks like the Vietnam Memorial, but instead of a wall of names, it's a dense wall of text full of circular bickering between people who will never change each others minds.

FWIW, I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind. I'm smart enough to know that ain't gonna happen. I am interested in demonstrating that one side's 'logic' is no better than another side's, and this really boils down to a matter of opinion.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The first thing is HOW DO YOU KNOW FOR SURE, in regards to what we are talking about here?

You've never met a couple that were told they were "sterile" only later to have kids without even trying? I know of several myself.

What about a woman who's had a hysterectomy or is past menopause? A man who has had his testicles removed? Know of any of those?

One couple can give a child without parents essentially the same rearing and parental arrangement that the rest of their peers born to the majority of parents who are not sterile can. Of course, that doesn't mean that those with the same genitalia are incapable of raising children, anymore than someone without arms or legs couldn't raise a child. The question is what standard do we want to encourage? If given a choice and all things being equal, would we want a child to be raised by a parent without all their limbs, or would it be exactly the same if they had none? Of course, it's much more of a challenge to do the latter and we'd all choose the former. The same should be the case in regards to this issue as well.

Yes, that's the million-dollar question, isn't it? I say the standard I want to encourage is to have the child raised in a loving home, regardless of the gender of either or both parents. Period. The way I see it, roughly 10% of society is homosexual. Pretty consistently has been that way in the past, pretty consistently will be in the future. That's 'normal'. So a child raised in a home like that is a 'normal' part of society, and everyone will learn to deal with it, and society is better off.

Are you claiming that the upbringing of a child by same-sex parents is inherently inferior?

Just my opinion and yours, that's all...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which traditional marriage STILL provides. Those who marry who find themselves unable to procreate but wish to have children can provide near identical family units as the "norm", ensuring children won't have to live at an disadvantage by being viewed differently by their peers or only have a single in-home gender role model.

Wait, is this about gay marriage or miscegenation? Because your argument applies equally well to either.

[hyteckit]

If I got 2 girls pregnant, can I marry both of them?

It would be sad for me to choose and leave one girl without a husband and a father for the child.

Seems only logical that I should be able to marry them both.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

If I got 2 girls pregnant, can I marry both of them?

It would be sad for me to choose and leave one girl without a husband and a father for the child.

Seems only logical that I should be able to marry them both.

If you're out knocking up multiple women, I'd argue that you are not suited well for marriage and will likely only add to the divorce rate. Seems logical to me that you would likely ditch both of 'em or have one or both of them abort.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

So is it important to your standard that they procreate? Yes or no?

No, not to the "standard". No more than it's important in the standard we use in giving racial affirmative action that those granted the special status have actually been discriminated against. The standard is designed so those who are included are most statistically likely to benefit from the affirmative action for the reason stated.

OK, so if you're going to expand the standard for marriage affirmative action, why limit it to opposite sexes? Again, is it part of the standard that they can procreate, or not?

That they are likely to procreate. As I explained, it's near impossible to set up a pre-marriage filter system to remove all the men and women who could not pro-create. It's tough to do even with lots of expensive tests and medical procedures. It's VERY easy to do with homosexuals as they can be removed from the class based on very simple scientific facts of life.

As I also explained, even if the minority of men and women end up not procreating, they still would be able to produce an pretty identical man/woman/child parental home unit for children who had no parents so that they could live a life that closely mirrored those of their peers as possible. That's a second part of the criteria homosexuals wouldn't be able to provide.

So, when we limit it to men and woman, we ensure as best we can that the people involved will likely to invoke a huge governmental and societal interest. The minority that get the class status that don't directly provide that interest (due to the difficulty in screening further) can also be our best "Plan B" for children who don't have parents.

[quote]As was slavery about 150 years ago. What's your point? Now we're realizing we're leaving roughly 10% of the population out. I think that's worth looking at with a fresh approach.[quote]

More likely 2-3% of the population, based on something that isn't a Constitutional protection and not likely to be any time soon. As I've stated before, suggesting that keeping people as slaves due to the color of the skin, and discriminating against people based on what they choose to do isn't really all that good of an analogy. People aren't being stopped from doing anything in this case - they are simply being denied special status for something that isn't equal to the thing that is currently getting special status.

Um, wouldn't allowing more people to marry reduce the number of children 'suffering through single parentage'?

I hear that there are long waiting lists in regards to adoption. I'd guess that there are enough married men and woman who find themselves unable to procreate to provide an identical man/woman/child parental home unit for children who had no parents so that they could live a life that closely mirrored those of their peers as possible.

OK, now procreation is important. Boy, we're really going in circles here - just in 2-3 paragraphs!

Your inability to understand the class in question isn't an example of my going in circles.

OK - well, my 'basic criteria' for the means test would be two people who love each other and willingly commit to each other. Period. What makes your 'basic criteria' better than mine? Since we're not checking for a clear ability to procreate, it's obviously not that.

Asked and answered. Multiple times.

And if a homosexual couple end up not being able to procreate, they still set up a situation where they can provide an almost identical man/man/child or woman/woman child living unit to help ensure that children born without responsible parents that is least disruptive and closely match to those of their peers. (Seeing as how a significant portion of their peers live with single parents or blended families).

At best, maybe 2% of their peers may have a situation where they live in a man/man/child or woman/woman/child living situation. Given that most recent scientific literature has claimed around a 3% population for homoseuxals, and only a fraction of those probably have children. That's not going to provide a child with the same standard society, nature and the federal government would like to promote, and the majority of the child's peers likely have - a man/woman/child parental living unit.

Even if you assume 50% divorce, there are more children with a mom and dad in-home than those that don't, and I don't think that recent statistical standards should be our goal. I already explained how attacks from the left has battered marriage and it's importance over the past 40 years or so to the point it is now. We don't need for it to be further marginalized by changing it's definition.

You seem to think it's 'sub-optimal', which I just think is bigoted.

Mother Nature must be the biggest bigot of them all.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

es, that's the million-dollar question, isn't it? I say the standard I want to encourage is to have the child raised in a loving home, regardless of the gender of either or both parents. Period.

Which is why we don't limit adoption to just married men and women. Sometimes you can't find a married man or a woman to take on a certain child. Maybe one that has problems. At that point, it is better for them to have any loving parent.

That doesn't mean however that we have to give special status to their relationships which WON'T provide the children in question the optimum child-raising experience where they will have a near identical raising as those of the majority of their peers. If they want to do that, we will grant them special status.