What will be the next Great Progressive Cause™ now that same-sex marriage is common?

[mikeymikec]

Society does not control procreation at all.

In most Western cultures that I'm aware of, two consenting adults can procreate whichever way they like, regardless of their marital status.

Gay people want to be able to get married in the same way that heterosexual people do (aside from getting married in homophobic religious institutions, who would want to if they're gay, I'm not sure), and for that marriage to be officially recognised in the same way that a hetero marriage is. Some hetero people have a problem with that.

That is all it comes down to.

Some Western countries allow not-quite-marriages (the UK has civil partnerships, for example), but AFAIK these don't have quite the same official status as a marriage, and so a procedure that might be a simple thing to get done for a hetero couple isn't simple for a homosexual couple because the latter's is treated as a "not quite a marriage", when the hetero and homosexual couple both got married for the same reason (public declaration of long-term commitment to each other).

I think the anti-argument boils down to the way it did when I last argued with my parents about it. My parents were fine with gay couples getting "whatevered", and that would allow them all the same rights as a married couple, but they weren't allowed to call it marriage. The simple reason for their "logic" can be summed up in one word: "URGH".

 

[michal1980]

So your rule is that people who cannot procreate cannot be married.

I hope you see how your argument fails.

My argument doesn't fail.

gay couples cannot by definition biologically reproduce.

on a marco scale, the government has an interest in preserving society and growing it. fundamentally, gay marriage is in contrast to that.

 

[michal1980]

Oh, that sounds fun. Do you have a timetable for when you believe this will happen?

right after gay marriage is allowed in the country.

I'm betting a lawsuit will be filed against various churches on the basis of discrimination.

The same logic used to justify gay marriage in the first place, will be used to force churches to marry gays.

 

[nehalem256]

Society does not control procreation at all, can you just stop that line of argument?

In most Western cultures that I'm aware of, two consenting adults can procreate whichever way they like, regardless of their marital status.

As I said liberals don't believe marriage:

I think the problem is that liberals(and some conservatives *cough* Newt Gingrich *cough*) really do not believe in marriage. What they want is government sanctioned temporary sex partners (GSTSP). They then co-opted the name marriage to refer to their new union.

Gay people want to be able to get married in the same way that heterosexual people do (aside from getting married in homophobic institutions), and for that marriage to be officially recognised in the same way that a hetero marriage is. Some hetero people have a problem with that.

Gay people want government swag. I don't think anyone has ever said otherwise.

 

[HomerJS]

Why isn't there more outrage about divorce being a greater threat to "traditional" marriage as opposed to 2 gay people getting married??

 

[jackstar7]

2 lesbians or 2 gay men cannot procreate together.

Also, marriage is really about society controlling the procreation of heterosexual couples. This is why society created marriage.

There is inherently no need to control procreation in homosexual couples as biology does it already.

How did you reach that conclusion about the creation of marriage?

And to which society do you ascribe it?


And again, science is going to undermine your assertions about homosexual procreation.

 

[nehalem256]

My argument doesn't fail.

gay couples cannot by definition biologically reproduce.

on a marco scale, the government has an interest in preserving society and growing it. fundamentally, gay marriage is in contrast to that.

I am not sure I would use the word contrast. Its more like it is completely unrelated to it.

right after gay marriage is allowed in the country.

I'm betting a lawsuit will be filed against various churches on the basis of discrimination.

The same logic used to justify gay marriage in the first place, will be used to force churches to marry gays.

They don't have to do that. They can just use the media to bully churches into performing them just like the link I posted showing the media bullying the church that wouldnt perform inter-racial marriage.

 

[jackstar7]

Why isn't there more outrage about divorce being a greater threat to "traditional" marriage as opposed to 2 gay people getting married??

Marriage is just a contract between two straight people!


/s

 

[mikeymikec]

As I said liberals don't believe marriage:

No, many people don't believe in your definition of marriage. You can keep bleating your definition of marriage until your throat/fingers get sore, but it doesn't change the fact that people typically get married because they love each other and they want to publicly and officially declare their long-term commitment to each other.

 

[nehalem256]

Why isn't there more outrage about divorce being a greater threat to "traditional" marriage as opposed to 2 gay people getting married??

How come every time I come out against no-fault divorce the lefties that make the same point you are making throw a fit about that too?

How did you reach that conclusion about the creation of marriage?

And to which society do you ascribe it?

Every single one of them. Why do you think societies opposed sex before marriage? How do you think society determined who the father of the child was?

If marriage is not about controlling pro-creation why do you think it was created?

 

[fskimospy]

right after gay marriage is allowed in the country.

I'm betting a lawsuit will be filed against various churches on the basis of discrimination.

The same logic used to justify gay marriage in the first place, will be used to force churches to marry gays.

Oh really? Gay marriage is already allowed in a whole bunch of areas, why haven't the lawsuits come already?

 

[nehalem256]

Marriage is just a contract between two straight people!

That is not true. A gay person is free to marrying a straight or gay person of the opposite sex.

 

[nehalem256]

Oh really? Gay marriage is already allowed in a whole bunch of areas, why haven't the lawsuits come already?

Because gay people are smart enough to wait to sue over such a thing until they can marry everywhere.

 

[HomerJS]

How come every time I come out against no-fault divorce the lefties that make the same point you are making throw a fit about that too?



Every single one of them. Why do you think societies opposed sex before marriage? How do you think society determined who the father of the child was?

If marriage is not about controlling pro-creation why do you think it was created?

I don't recall that but the biggest conservative mouths who talk about this have the most ex-wives. Cough...cough...Limbaugh...cough!

 

[fskimospy]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/05/church-reverses-ban-on-interracial-marriages/

There is historical precedence. You don't even need to pass laws just start engaging in bullying any church that doesn't support it.

So no lawsuit. Gotcha.

What I love is how churches always talk about how they need to have the right to express disapproval of behavior they think is wrong, and then idiots like you shriek that churches are being bullied when others do the exact same thing.

 

[fskimospy]

Because gay people are smart enough to wait to sue over such a thing until they can marry everywhere.

Ahhh so there is a nationwide gay conspiracy to hold off on the lawsuits until nationwide gay marriage happens.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard so far today, but then again it is only 11am.

 

[jman19]

I love these threads - they really bring the bigots out in full force.

 

[mikeymikec]

Ahhh so there is a nationwide gay conspiracy to hold off on the lawsuits until nationwide gay marriage happens.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard so far today, but then again it is only 11am.

It's a conspiracy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8

 

[jackstar7]

If marriage is not about controlling pro-creation why do you think it was created?

Property transfer and for making socio-economic stability units.

 

[nehalem256]

Property transfer and for making socio-economic stability units.

And the property would be transferred to who exactly?

 

[jackstar7]

The partner. The children. The family of the partner.

What's confusing?

 

[lotus503]

It's really simple. Marriage is a social construct so society makes the rules.

The argument I am hearing against marriage equality is reliant on biological differences when marriage is not a biological construct.

It's no different that any other social construct. Blacks were disallowed equality based on biological differences
Eventually society determined blacks are equal despite the biological difference in skin pigment.

Anything that is a social construct can be changed or defined by society.

Biology literally has nothing to do with it.

 

[nehalem256]

The partner. The children. The family of the partner.

What's confusing?

It was the children. Why would a man have cared to enter into an agreement to give his possessions to a woman if he died?

And the family of the partner is completely ridiculous. His possession could have just passed to his family.

 

[jackstar7]

It's really simple. Marriage is a social construct so society makes the rules.

The argument I am hearing against marriage equality is reliant on biological differences when marriage is not a biological construct.

It's no different that any other social construct. Blacks were disallowed equality based on biological differences
Eventually society determined blacks are equal despite the biological difference in skin pigment.

Anything that is a social construct can be changed or defined by society.

Biology literally has nothing to do with it.

Final Answer.

 

[nehalem256]

It's really simple. Marriage is a social construct so society makes the rules.

The argument I am hearing against marriage equality is reliant on biological differences when marriage is not a biological construct.

It's no different that any other social construct. Blacks were disallowed equality based on biological differences
Eventually society determined blacks are equal despite the biological difference in skin pigment.

Anything that is a social construct can be changed or defined by society.

Biology literally has nothing to do with it.

The argument is that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are different, and that this difference makes them unequal to society and therefore it is not discrimination to treat them unequally.

Society does not grant special BFF licenses for the same reason it does not grant marriages to same-sex partners.