Thread: Should legally married same sex couples recieve federal benefits?

Originally Posted by Daktoria

If you agree that expression and impression go hand in hand, it shouldn't be difficult to see the problem with letting homosexuals get "married".

I believe in logical and rational arguments, which seems to put us at odds.

Originally Posted by Daktoria

Excuse me?

The whole point of getting married is guaranteed assumption of risk in having kids.

A stable family structure certainly does help with that, doesn't mean that marriage should be limited to that.

Originally Posted by Daktoria

Actually the history of marriage precedes religion. It goes back to paleolithic times when paternity tests were impossible.

So? That doesn't mean we have to remain in paleolithic times. Systems evolve.

Originally Posted by Gipper

Last I checked, he doesn't have an issue with homosexuals getting married. It's just one thing to perform an action out of love and commitment, and another to perform it to weenie out of a tax bracket.

Last I checked, children don't consent to be born. They're entitled to dimorphic expertise from the people who create them.

Originally Posted by Gipper

Whoa whoa whoa...

I personally do not intend to have kids, knock on wood. Does this mean I have no business getting married?

Frankly I don't have a problem with it, but what if the girl I wanna be with insists? Chicks do that, ya know. Yeah, I might find a woman who wants to be with me 40 years without a piece of paper and a white dress, but I'm hedging that bet.

Marriage is about risk assumption. Whether you actually have kids or not doesn't matter. The point is it's insurance that potential kids will be cared for.

Originally Posted by Daktoria

Last I checked, children don't consent to be born. They're entitled to dimorphic expertise from the people who create them.

Pfft, over a million of them are killed each year before they can even live.

Originally Posted by Ikari

A stable family structure certainly does help with that, doesn't mean that marriage should be limited to that.

Cuckolding is coercion.

So? That doesn't mean we have to remain in paleolithic times. Systems evolve.

No. Nature evolves. Society develops.

The point of living in society is we've overcome the state of nature. There is more to cognitive experience than recklessly marching onward.

Originally Posted by Ikari

Pfft, over a million of them are killed each year before they can even live.

You don't see a problem with that?

Tell me, how can we appreciate the subjectivity of personhood when extinguishing its potential simply because its hostage takers go unsatisfied?

Originally Posted by Daktoria

Marriage is about risk assumption.

For men.

#1 reason I'm not married.

Originally Posted by Daktoria

Cuckolding is coercion.

It's also completely irrelevant to what I stated.

Originally Posted by Daktoria

No. Nature evolves. Society develops.

The point of living in society is we've overcome the state of nature. There is more to cognitive experience than recklessly marching onward.

Evolution is change. Society certainly does evolve over time. Humans have never gotten anywhere through stagnation. It's slow death.

Originally Posted by Gipper

For men.

#1 reason I'm not married.

No, it doesn't have to do with men or women. It has to do with how children aren't property. They're people.