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

[jackstar7]

Treating unequal relationships equally is treating them unequally.

Context matters. Social relationships are being treated equally under our social rules.

Biology only enters into it because you cannot make the distinction between a relationship and sexual intercourse.

 

[cybrsage]

Now you are just trying to weasel your way out of your bigotry against other minority groups. You clearly do not care if injustice is done. Here is what you clearly claimed.

You talked about sterilizing people. That's why I never cared to answer you seriously; because you showed no sign of making a serious argument.

No one is stopping those other groups from presenting their legal arguments.

That is not what I asked. Care to actually answer the question you quoted? I will repost it to make it easy on you.

So I ask, why are we purposefully denying rights to some people while fighting to give rights to one select group of people? Why is the homosexual group more important or more special to deserve these rights while denying them to other groups?

EDIT: For example, the civil rights movement did not deny equal rights to Asians and only give them to Blacks. Why is this "equal rights" movement purposefully NOT trying to give equal rights to groups other than homosexuals? Equal is not very equal when it purposefully only advances one group while ensuring other groups are still denied equality.

You are free to avail yourself of the legal system to pursue your desire for the rights of more citizens.

I know you are used to recreating history and not being challenged on it, but it does not work with me. Your pathetic attempt was easily shown.

 

[nehalem256]

The same-sex couples can adopt, or artificial inseminate, or use surrogacy.

Or do we need another word for families that aren't formed "naturally"?

Unmarried individuals should not be able to use artificial insemination or surrogacy *cough* octomom *cough*

Also funny that according to the logic you just presented there is no reason to outlaw incestuous marriage

 

[desura]

A few months ago, Gawker ran a story about..."men who have sex with children"

 

[lotus503]

That would have been like denying civil rights to Asians and Hispanics when the blacks marched. It is classic injustice to expand rights to include one minority group while denying those rights to other minority groups.

It sounds to me like you agree that in this thread equality does not mean equality, it means "giving rights to one minority group while denying them to other minority groups".

Not at all, what I am saying is the issue on the table is gay marriage. That is the issue up for societal consideration.

Consider that issues need to reach a point of critical mass to be considered a matter of public policy.

It doesn't mean other issues of equality are not important simply they have not reached a threshold of broad societal consideration.

Put up an equality issue, get it under broad consideration and have society consider it.

 

[Retro Rob]

The same-sex couples can adopt, or artificial inseminate, or use surrogacy.

Or do we need another word for families that aren't formed "naturally"?

Yes they can, but those facts alone points to a huge difference in the relationships.. I don't have to adopt or use a surrogate for my wife and I to start a family... they do.

This doesn't mean that they can't/shouldn't get married... this just means that we can't *say* their relationships are completely on par with hetero relationships..

and this is why I think comparing this to interracial marriages is an inaccurate comparision.

 

[lotus503]

Treating unequal relationships equally is treating them unequally.

Lol your choice to treat differences unequal false premise.

 

[jackstar7]

Unmarried individuals should not be able to use artificial insemination or surrogacy *cough* octomom *cough*

Also funny that according to the logic you just presented there is no reason to outlaw incestuous marriage

I don't actually care about it. I'm also not a lawyer.

 

[lotus503]

I get what you're saying... you can certainly choose how to treat something or someone.

But it doesn't change the facts, that's all I mean. But I agree with you.

Yeah I am not saying same sex couples are no different than heterosexual couples. That's obtuse.

What I am saying is that the differences are not unequal as it relates to marriage as a social construct.

That's a choice I make.

 

[jackstar7]

Yes they can, but those facts alone points to a huge difference in the relationships.. I don't have to adopt or use a surrogate for my wife and I to start a family... they do.

This doesn't mean that they can't/shouldn't get married... this just means that we can't *say* their relationships are completely on par with hetero relationships..

and this is why I think comparing this to interracial marriages is an inaccurate comparision.

What if you were sterile? Then you would have to avail yourself of those alternatives despite being heterosexual. Would you describe your rellationship as something other than a marriage in that case?

 

[nehalem256]

Yeah I am not saying same sex couples are no different than heterosexual couples. That's obtuse.

What I am saying is that the differences are not unequal as it relates to marriage as a social construct.

That's a choice I make.

Marriage is a social construct based around human reproduction. It seems pretty clear that SS and OS couples are unequal as it relates to human reproduction and therefore marriage.

 

[jackstar7]

Now you are just trying to weasel your way out of your bigotry against other minority groups. You clearly do not care if injustice is done. Here is what you clearly claimed.

I know you are used to recreating history and not being challenged on it, but it does not work with me. Your pathetic attempt was easily shown.

I'm not trying to weasel out of anything. You declared that I was trolling you before. If I was, now you know the source was your absurd starting point for a discussion.

 

[chucky2]

The blame for destroying civil marriage as an institution. I thought that was clear... but I keep overestimating my opacity or underestimating your ability to be obtuse.

Ahh, I see now. Yes, I'm sure religious people will claim that. They'd just be right but for a somewhat wrong reason.

Also, your use of inarguable is inaccurate.

No, it's accurate, the gay side has just willfully ignored the 50% biological difference as inconsequential, that is, they've taken the position that pure water/pure dirt = mud. Believe me, I fully understand why they've done that. If they don't do that, their 'equal' argument being used as the basis of emo discrimination completely falls apart. They obviously cannot have that, so they need to do whatever it takes to keep that out of the narrative. They're quite obviously wrong, as my analogy shows, but, completely right in the track they've taken. It'd be like a lawyer purposefully introducing evidence that destroys their own case...WhoTF would do that???

It is being argued that this is not an emotional issue, you just deny the evidence that plainly demonstrates it what is counter to your established beliefs.

Of course it's being argued this isn't an emo issue, the emo objective of perverting marriage to include gays can't be met if it's argued solely as an emo issue. So they're taking the legal track, both to - wrongly - get their emo issue solved and - rightly - get their legal issues solved. Except we can solve their legal issues straight out (no pun intended) with having Gov only legally recognise civil unions. Why would gays not take this far easier political route? Because that won't solve the emo issue. So I don't deny it, I just fully understand it.

It's clear you never wanted to discuss this as you never had any intention of holding a different view of the situation. You just want to rant and rail against this injustice you perceive. I'll leave you to it. I'm sure others will continue to prompt you.

I could simply say the same for you. Except I'm not willfully ignoring a 50% biological difference, thousands of years of marriage tradition from vastly different cultures, and calling it "equal", all to support an emo issue.

Chuck

 

[jackstar7]

Marriage is a social construct based around human reproduction.

Still not true.

 

[jackstar7]

I could simply say the same for you. Except I'm not willfully ignoring a 50% biological difference, thousands of years of marriage tradition from vastly different cultures, and calling it "equal", all to support and emo issue.

Chuck

You are simply willfully ignoring context.

 

[Retro Rob]

What if you were sterile? Then you would have to avail yourself of those alternatives despite being heterosexual. Would you describe your rellationship as something other than a marriage in that case?

It's still a man + woman.

I don't see how that isn't registering with you. But I get your point.

That doesn't make me biologically incompatible with my wife, though.

but, I understand where you're coming from on the social angle, though...

 

[lotus503]

Marriage is a social construct based around human reproduction. It seems pretty clear that SS and OS couples are unequal as it relates to human reproduction and therefore marriage.

That's your opinion, society has evolved and as its evolved the social construct of marriage no longer is based around human reproduction.

You make a choice to attach a reproduction component to marriage as a social construct because it allows you to use it for a basis of inequality.

I think same sex marriages given the biological differences are not unequal.

 

[lotus503]

It's still a man + woman.

I don't see how that isn't registering with you. But I get your point.

That doesn't make me biologically incompatible with my wife, though.

but, I understand where you're coming from on the social angle, though...

Marriage is not a biological construct it's social. That's the heart of it.

It's why it's not derived from biology but societal interpretation.

 

[Retro Rob]

Marriage is not a biological construct it's social. That's the heart of it.

It's why it's not derived from biology but societal interpretation.

While I totally disagree with that, that wasn't my arguement so I'll leave it alone.

My argument was with the inaccuracy of the comparisions made with interracial marriage.

 

[chucky2]

You are simply willfully ignoring context.

No, I'm not ignoring the context at all, I'm including it...all of it. I don't ignore that a gay couple has the exact same emotional attachment and dedication to each other than a straight couple can have. From that POV, they satisfy that requirement for marriage. What I also don't ignore, but the gay side does (or, at best dismisses as irrelevent) is they only 50% match on the biological requirement. When the context and tradition of the word and meaning of marriage has always been 1 male 1 female, failing this biological requirement is damning. Which is precisely why it needs to be dismissed by the gay marriage side.

Really, you and the gay side is simply willfully ignoring context.

Chuck

 

[jackstar7]

It's still a man + woman.

I don't see how that isn't registering with you. But I get your point.

That doesn't make me biologically incompatible with my wife, though.

but, I understand where you're coming from on the social angle, though...

How does it not make you biologically incompatible? If you cannot produce offspring together... what other means are you using to arrive at your conclusion?

 

[jackstar7]

No, I'm not ignoring the context at all, I'm including it...all of it. I don't ignore that a gay couple has the exact same emotional attachment and dedication to each other than a straight couple can have. From that POV, they satisfy that requirement for marriage. What I also don't ignore, but the gay side does (or, at best dismisses are irrelevent) is they only 50% match on the biological requirement. When the context and tradition of the word and meaning of marriage has always been 1 male 1 female, failing this biological requirement is damning. Which is precisely why it needs to be dismissed by the gay marriage side.

Really, you and the gay side is simply willfully ignoring context.

Chuck

Can you list all the requirements for marriage? You're saying there is a biological requirement and I don't understand where that comes from... except that you seem to be imposing it.

Also, it appears that your requirements do not prohibit incest...

 

[lotus503]

While I totally disagree with that, that wasn't my arguement so I'll leave it alone.

My argument was with the inaccuracy of the comparisions made with interracial marriage.

There is nothing to disagree with.
Marriage being a social construct is fact and can't be disputed.

The biological attachment is made by society or not made by society based on the choice of society.

That's also exactly why it's no different than interracial marriage.

 

[desura]

re: sterile couples being married.

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

It's too inconvenient given the mysteries of fertility.

 

[chucky2]

Can you list all the requirements for marriage? You're saying there is a biological requirement and I don't understand where that comes from... except that you seem to be imposing it.

This has already been discussed in this thread, and has already existed for thousands of years across multiple societies. It would really be easier for you to explain why we now need to pervert the context and meaning of marriage by excluding this already accepted requirement for a purely emo reason. So far you have completely failed to do that.

Also, it appears that your requirements do not prohibit incest...

Correct, marriage does not deal with incest, that is a societal issue. Plenty of people related to each other have been married. This does not remove or diminish the biological requirement of 1 male 1 female from the context and meaning of marriage.

Chuck