Gay marriage: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Gay marriage » Gay marriage

Gay marriage
Should be banned? Nicley though

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Gay marriage

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 135

Posted 10/29/09 - 08:31 PM:	#21
Odin wrote: I don't really see how its an issue if gay 'couples' are afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples who are married. I don't see why changing the name of it is relevant. Call it a banana for all I care, but personally I'd rather it not be considered marriage if anything because marriage carries more powerful obligations related to the perpetuation of the human species and creation of new life in the image of the parents, which holds special significance. How about if you merely put you hands over your ears whenever someone says marriage in the context of the matrimony of two people who cannot biologiclly have children? When it's in text, cover your eyes. That way an intolerence veto is not created for everyone else. Edited by davidasearles on 10/29/09 - 08:45 PM

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 135

Posted 10/29/09 - 08:44 PM:	#22
Cadrache wrote: I prefer the ideology of 'nodes' over that of 'words' davidasearles wrote: But you are using words to explain it. What"s that all about? Cadrache wrote: You merely decode them as words. I have merely decoded what as words? These things contained in your post? "I" "prefer" "the" "ideology" "of" "nodes" "over" "that" "of" "words" You perhaps encoded something other than words? Edited by davidasearles on 10/29/09 - 08:55 PM

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 214

Posted 10/29/09 - 09:51 PM:	#23
davidasearles wrote: How about if you merely put you hands over your ears whenever someone says marriage in the context of the matrimony of two people who cannot biologiclly have children? When it's in text, cover your eyes. That way an intolerence veto is not created for everyone else. Because I don't want to? Tolerance is just accepting deviation from the norm. It makes no sense to define tolerance as the norm, given its definition. Everyone has a right to be married - as it is defined between a man and a woman. The fact that some people don't want to marry the opposite gender is irrelevant. Everyone also has a right to a 'partnership' with a person of the same sex. People don't have a right to deny reality and pretend that what they "have" is something that its not. As long as those two things have the same "rights" attached to them there should be no cause for debate.

Kant Chocula
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 28, 2009
Location: North East Ohio

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 29

Posted 10/29/09 - 10:46 PM:	#24
jaoman wrote: From this perspective, it's hard to say how one could make the argument for gay marriage. It'll make them happy, yes; however, in the eyes of the state marriage implies friendlier tax rules, which are there for the support of raising the child. Whatever religions choose to do, as there is no child being raised, it is against the interest of the state to give people money just because it will make them happy. Therefore, the state ought not to recognize gay marriage. Then infertile heterosexual couples and heterosexual couples who choose to not have children ought to be denied marriage by the state as well since the friendlier tax rules are there to help raise children. For that matter, since I have been voluntarily sterilized, once my children are of age my marital status should be void (then tack the same attitude to menopausal women as well). After all, it's against the interest of the state to give tax breaks to people who can't reproduce.
A categorically delicious part of your noumenal breakfast.

Kant Chocula
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 28, 2009
Location: North East Ohio

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 29

Posted 10/29/09 - 10:58 PM:	#25
Odin wrote: I don't really see how its an issue if gay 'couples' are afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples who are married. I don't see why changing the name of it is relevant. Call it a banana for all I care, but personally I'd rather it not be considered marriage if anything because marriage carries more powerful obligations related to the perpetuation of the human species and creation of new life in the image of the parents, which holds special significance. Once again, not all married heterosexual couples are capable of or even interested in the perpetuation of the human species and the creation of new life. So withholding the term "marriage" from homosexual couples for this reason is specious. By not allowing homosexual couples to call their legal relationship "marriage" we are depriving them of a privilege heterosexual couples are entitled to. We are basically telling homosexual couples that they are not special like we are. We are creating a publicly sanctioned, and funded, club and keeping them out. Perhaps they can caddy for us instead of enjoying full membership (just so long as they don't look us in the eye).
A categorically delicious part of your noumenal breakfast.

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 135

Posted 10/29/09 - 11:32 PM:	#26
Odin wrote: davidasearles wrote: How about if you merely put you hands over your ears whenever someone says marriage in the context of the matrimony of two people who cannot biologiclly have children? When it's in text, cover your eyes. That way an intolerence veto is not created for everyone else. Because I don't want to? Tolerance is just accepting deviation from the norm. It makes no sense to define tolerance as the norm, given its definition. Everyone has a right to be married - as it is defined between a man and a woman. The fact that some people don't want to marry the opposite gender is irrelevant. Everyone also has a right to a 'partnership' with a person of the same sex. People don't have a right to deny reality and pretend that what they "have" is something that its not. As long as those two things have the same "rights" attached to them there should be no cause for debate. But it would work unfailingly What you do want is everyone one to be intolerant to gay couples and non-fertile staright couples so you can perpetuate in your own mind a fairy tale myth. And that is not going to happen. I can tolerate you. You were the one that said that you didn't want to see or hear reference to the likes of my marriage. So you can have your wish fulfilled by closing your eyes and covering your ears or you can have your wish to not to see or hear refernce to marriage beween same sex couples and infertile couples unfulfilled. Your choice.

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Total Topics: 82
Total Posts: 1426

Posted 10/30/09 - 10:51 AM:	#27
davidasearles wrote: Marriage is a contract. Only those capable of consenting to the contact may be married. For the protection of children states have set the minimum age of consent to enter into marriage. (in some limited instances states have allowed parents or courts to assent in the child's "bests interests" although the child is below the usual age of personal consent. For this same reason (not being capable) a comatose person or a person under duress cannot give consent to marry. Marriage is a contract, agreed. But a contract for what? What are the terms being agreed to? If it's mutual love and respect, that's cool, but it's hardly the government's job to enforce feelings. Marriage being a contract is not inconsistent with my argument, as best as I can remember it. What I've been arguing is that marriage is a contract regarding pregnancy and the support of the young. Kant Chocula wrote: Then infertile heterosexual couples and heterosexual couples who choose to not have children ought to be denied marriage by the state as well since the friendlier tax rules are there to help raise children. For that matter, since I have been voluntarily sterilized, once my children are of age my marital status should be void (then tack the same attitude to menopausal women as well). After all, it's against the interest of the state to give tax breaks to people who can't reproduce. Interesting point. Should infertile couples be denied marriage? Maybe. That conclusion would be consistent with my argument. On the other hand, voiding the marriages of couples whose children have grown is arbitrary. If that were the law, couples would prepare for it in advance and everything would be fine. As it is, I see no reason to start punishing couples for having raised their children.
"With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 214

Posted 10/30/09 - 11:42 AM:	#28
Kant Chocula wrote: Once again, not all married heterosexual couples are capable of or even interested in the perpetuation of the human species and the creation of new life. So withholding the term "marriage" from homosexual couples for this reason is specious. By not allowing homosexual couples to call their legal relationship "marriage" we are depriving them of a privilege heterosexual couples are entitled to. We are basically telling homosexual couples that they are not special like we are. We are creating a publicly sanctioned, and funded, club and keeping them out. Perhaps they can caddy for us instead of enjoying full membership (just so long as they don't look us in the eye). All heterosexual couples capable of the perpetuation of the human species assume the obligations attached to perpetuating the species whether they actually do or not (like they have much choice in the matter). Marriage exists to solidify the obligations that arise from perpetuating the species, that is all. The fairly tale that many people have been peddling that its for "love" is not true. You can love something without marrying it. You can't be secure in the obligations another person has to you without the oath taken in marriage (like that even is much good anymore, I guess some people still take it seriously). Still, in any heterosexual marriage we are dealing with a union capable and designed to perpetuated the species, while in a homosexual union, by their own admission, it is for the purpose of love, lust, and primal induldgence. So yes, there is a difference between gay and straight "marriages," the fact that one actually is marriage and the other isn't. Those complaining about tolerance, I prefer not to tolerate too much deviation from reality, so I don't tolerate the non-issue of homosexuals changing the name of their union.

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 214

Posted 10/30/09 - 11:47 AM:	#29
davidasearles wrote: Because I don't want to? Tolerance is just accepting deviation from the norm. It makes no sense to define tolerance as the norm, given its definition. Everyone has a right to be married - as it is defined between a man and a woman. The fact that some people don't want to marry the opposite gender is irrelevant. Everyone also has a right to a 'partnership' with a person of the same sex. People don't have a right to deny reality and pretend that what they "have" is something that its not. As long as those two things have the same "rights" attached to them there should be no cause for debate. But it would work unfailingly What you do want is everyone one to be intolerant to gay couples and non-fertile staright couples so you can perpetuate in your own mind a fairy tale myth. And that is not going to happen. I can tolerate you. You were the one that said that you didn't want to see or hear reference to the likes of my marriage. So you can have your wish fulfilled by closing your eyes and covering your ears or you can have your wish to not to see or hear refernce to marriage beween same sex couples and infertile couples unfulfilled. Your choice. [/quote] I never said I cared or didn't want to see it, but I do think the modern strive of "tolerance" and "viewing everyone the same," despite obvious differences is damaging to society and to the concept of obligations to each other. Same goes for the people who say there is no difference between men and women: there are obvious physical differences. A woman's body is designed for the purpose of raising and nurturing children. A man's body is designed for physical labor. No amount of complaining will change that, but our technological progression allows that many of our natural functions can be assigned to the other species. Whether that's good or bad is cause for another debate. I'm not the one peddling a fairy tale myth - you are - the myth that we live in a happy world that's all about love and getting to be treated equally no matter what. Others of us accept the reality that we have certain obligations in this life that are taken seriously and marriage is a device used to solidify the most important of those obligations.

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 135

Posted 10/30/09 - 12:16 PM:	#30
jaoman wrote: Marriage is a contract, agreed. But a contract for what? What are the terms being agreed to? If it's mutual love and respect, that's cool, but it's hardly the government's job to enforce feelings. Marriage being a contract is not inconsistent with my argument, as best as I can remember it. What I've been arguing is that marriage is a contract regarding pregnancy and the support of the young. "A contract for mutual love and respect?" Wow, you have a lot to learn. "but it's hardly the government's job to enforce feelings" A straw man argument. "What I've been arguing is that marriage is a contract regarding pregnancy and the support of the young." You simply make things up as you go along to fill in where your knowledge is incomplete? Am I not married for 25 years because prior to my wedding I was and remain to this day infertile?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.