Marriage isn't a right.The state is in the business of protecting our rights, and if they are allowing some to marry and not others, or recognizing some and not others in a legal sense, then the state is being unequal in its distribution or rights and recognitions.
A fact (premise, etc.) in and of itself isn't "illogical."Partially. But you are missing the point and thinking too narrowly. Ask yourself this: since not all couples who are married procreate, why do two people choose to get married? If you are honest about the answer, you will then understand why the argument you are making (gays can marry...just people of the opposite sex) is illogical.
I don't see how this is relevant, but to answer your question:That brings me back to my question above. Let's see you answer it honestly. If procreation is not a requirement for marriage, why do two people choose to get married?
A fact (premise, etc.) in and of itself isn't "illogical."
What you call my "thinking too narrowly" is you taking that fact and putting it into an argument that you created and ascribe to me.
I don't see how this is relevant, but to answer your question:
There are many potential reasons. Some marry because they're infatuated with the other person, head over heels in love. Some marry because their parents told them too. Some marry because their spouse has tons of money and that person likes the feeling of security. Some people marry because they want to start a family. Some marry for a mixture of some or all of those reasons. Some marry for none of those reasons.
Marriage isn't a right.
Just out of curiosity, where did you hear this information? From chatting with friends of mine who happen to be gay, they seem to want what heterosexual couples want when they involve themselves in a marriage - legal recognition, a family, and validation. All three of these you listed, and there is probably more. What I am curious about is how you somehow arrived at the conclusion that the 'welfare of the family' is a distant third, because i'd say this is incorrect.
Furthermore, what homosexuals want in regards to marriage is what heterosexuals want as well, wouldn't you agree?
Just out of curiosity, where did you hear this information? From chatting with friends of mine who happen to be gay, they seem to want what heterosexual couples want when they involve themselves in a marriage - legal recognition, a family, and validation. All three of these you listed, and there is probably more. What I am curious about is how you somehow arrived at the conclusion that the 'welfare of the family' is a distant third, because i'd say this is incorrect. Furthermore, what homosexuals want in regards to marriage is what heterosexuals want as well, wouldn't you agree?
I'm a fairly active member of an online debate forum, where people of many points of view bring not only opinion, but links and evidence to substantiate their various arguments. Here are links to a few key threads on the issue. If you like what you see I invite you to sign up and join us:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/48765-ca-do-right-thing-and-overturn-prop-8-a.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ia-supreme-court-upholds-proposition-8-a.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-el...mericans-voted-against-prop-8-california.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/39715-calif-gov-we-maybe-undo-prop-8-a.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-up-security-after-anti-prop-8-vandalism.html
"Heterosexuals" don't hold a uniform opinion on the issue for a comparison to be made. Also, there are prominent gays oppose gay 'marriage, so we can see that this is not a gay-vs-straight issue.
I'm going to change my stance a little and say no one should be able to get married because we are not monogamous beings. What's the divorce rate in this country again? For heterosexual AND Homosexual marriages?
Actually, I think both heterosexuals AND homosexuals should be required to get married. Heterosexuals should be forced to marry because being single means that you are depriving some lucky guy or girl out of a future divorce settlement. Homosexuals should be forced to marry because i'm a little tired of their happy-go-lucky lifestyle.
Thank you for welcoming me a year and half later to the messageboard, Jerry! As a member of this community for as long as those threads have been running, I can tell you without a shadow of doubt that you will find no unbiased, scientific, or psychiatric evidence in them to factually substantiate your claim that homosexuals regard the 'welfare of the family' as a 'distant third'. At the moment, you are probably saying to yourself, "You know, self, Singularity cannot possibly know that! It's almost as if he *gasp* read those threads before!" However, those threads are a bit old and I aint gettin' any younger myself. Therefore, I invite you to stand and deliver. Please, show me specifics in those threads where the homosexual community regards the welfare of the family as a 'distant third'. I'd like - your words - 'links and evidence', of course. Oh, and as always, i'd love to see something based in fact, as I mentioned. Unless your opinion is not based on such a thing?
Oh, and for further reference, you may avoid any future slip ups by reading the 'Join Date' underneath the avatar. It's right above the 'Last Seen' line. You're welcome. :2wave:
Singularity has been successfully trolled :mrgreen:
There were many links to laws, statistical data, gay-marriage leaders calling for an end to "second-class status" Domestic Partnership confers, and smiler, in those discussions. I'm sorry you chose to miss out.
I played one in WoW, omg! So I know teh trollZorz when I see it!
And yet, there was nothing factually specific in any of them about homosexuals regarding 'welfare of the family' as some 'distant third' when it comes to why they wish to get married in the first place - a claim that you made a few pages back. Perhaps you wish to pick something specific out of those threads? After all, i'm assuming you made this claim based on something concrete, like a poll of the homosexual community or something like that? Maybe something scientific?
I'm just trying to figure out where you arrived at this conclusion, because i'd say it's incorrect. And i'd wager that there is nothing of the scientific or polling sort in any of those threads specifically making that claim, either.
This is an interesting thread. I have a question of my own.
Can a person be for gay marriage and not be out to destroy traditional marriage?
This is an interesting thread. I have a question of my own.
Can a person be for gay marriage and not be out to destroy traditional marriage?
Let me ask you with sincerity: is their orientation fulfilling the roll of marriage as "vital to the survival of mankind" (Skinner-v-OK)?
Can a person be for gay marriage and not be out to destroy traditional marriage?
I would say so, at least to the same extent that the marriage of heterosexuals is vital to our survival. It's tragic, but I think we can all conclude definitively that marriage has proven not to be essential to procreation-- but it is certainly vastly beneficial to the raising of children. It is just as essential to the raising of children of homosexuals as it is the raising of children of heterosexuals.
Yes. Case in point, myself. Concerning the legality of marriage, I have two goals: restore traditional marriage including the emphasis on lifelong commitment and its central focus being on the well-being of the family, and then to allow qualified homosexual couples to participate fully in it.
I think that if we opened up to a more caring family, regardless of who gives the caring, we'd find that a traditional family (Mommy and Daddy) isn't necessary for raising kids.
There are plenty of different family makeups that yield productive members of society, and plenty of traditional families that turn our wackjobs.
I like how you're trying to impose a frame work on me, that I'm somehow obligated to comply with your narrow requirements :lol:
Petty posturing at it's best :lol:
Again, a false premise doesn't make an argument "illogical." Can you please restate what you think my argument is, and if you're not ascribing that to me, maybe a quote to where I made that argument?I am not "ascribing" an argument to you. I am giving you context about what the argument is about. It is about the sexual orientation of the people who want to marry. NOT the gender. That is why your argument is illogical. It's entire premise is false.
They don't, but I fail to see the relevance. Are you trying to claim that if the reasons are the same, the state should recognize gay marriage? That makes no sense.And how are any of these reasons impacted by the sexual orientation of the two people involved?
We aren't peaceful creatures by nature, either. Should we abolish laws restricting violent activity?Marriage isn't right. We are not monogamous critters by nature. :lol:
All they have to do is present a valid logical reason based upon fact to justify their opposition.
No one opposed to same-sex marriage has done that to date.
All the caring in the world can't replace adequate supervision.
And the majority of child abuse and child murder cases are perpetrated by step-parents or live-in partners of the primary caregiver. Separating children from their original caretakers and introducing strangers into their domestic lives is very bad-- and it is traditional marriage that best protects children from this fate.
I can attest to this. My parents were married until I was twelve, and I am one of the atypical cases in which severe child abuse occurred at the hands of parents. I'll leave it to your own discretion as to whether or not you consider me a wackjob; the State is withholding its own judgment on the matter until I either run out of property or run afoul of the law.
On the other hand, the fact that other family structures do produce numerous success stories doesn't change the fact that being raised in a traditional two-parent home is the single largest factor in predicting a child's welfare and chances of future success as an adult.