[yiwahikanak]

The 'legalized' gay marriage (which falsely implies that gay marriage is now prohibited)

It is prohibited and not given legal effect in most of the US.

fad is one of the silliest ones to have taken hold. If people in gay marriage are given tax benefits, then EVERY ONE should be given the tax benefits.

Why shouldn't everyone NOW all be given tax benefits, since people in heterosexual marriages are getting them?

There's some logic in encouraging non-incestuous opposite sex unions, but when you start encouraging asexual, incestuous, same-sex, and polygamous marriages with tax benefits, it loses all purpose.

What is the purpose, again?

Well put.

Have you been paying attention to the various contractual rights (those are things besides tax benefits) that married couples get that cannot be replicated adequately outside of marriage?

[Pants-of-dog]

RPa, I thought you were a libertarian.

I have never met a libertarian who argued against same sex marriage.

[SpecialOlympian]

Technically, RPA argues against homosexuality and incest. Please don't ignore the extra effort he invests in making sure the word incest shows up every time he mentions homosexuality.

[yiwahikanak]

Technically, RPA argues against homosexuality and incest. Please don't ignore the extra effort he invests in making sure the word incest shows up every time he mentions homosexuality.

Yeah, that was odd.

[Suska]

I don't find it odd that people have values independent of their political-economic theories. Of course, you have to understand that RPA is not a philosophical-libertarian.

What I do find odd is the assurance that some people here seem to get from a resort to other people's opinions. Surely this is matter of values, in which case the only resort we can have is to a democratic vote. What can science say to us that we are not trying to decide for ourselves here? It's like a guy who can't go to a bar alone because, "No one goes to a bar alone, therefore if you're at a bar alone, you're not here!"

[inquisitu]

Where it varies, consequences vary. If you like your species (or even just say, the particular beauty of your women-folk) there is a value in propagating them. If there is a value in propagating them there is a value in marriage as a formal statement of values regarding propagation. In fact, marriage varies very little and has only rarely even been questioned - it's obvious until you separate things so badly you no longer see the connection between our future and our present regard for sex and family.

My conclusion from this thread is a continuation of my general regard for modernity and current frustration about the atheists on PoFo. You're blind fools.

You are confusing "value in propagation" with "athiesm - religious justification for marriage" .

Valuing propagation is a secular arguement for Marriage - that there is some societal value to propagation; that we should give the union that is able to propagate a special term.

Religious justification - would be that God somehow reserved the term marriage .. to be between only a man and woman.

[Godstud]

I see... so your values are OK, but the people whom you wish to discriminate and perpetuate homophobia against have no rights to have values of their own that are likely different from yours.

Suska, you seem to have this illusion that I have no morality, or that I don't have values, simply because I support giving rights and benefits to homosexuals. Historical fact shows us that marriage is not simply a religious union with love and propagation of the species as the main goal. Historically marriage has meant a lot of things, and this meaning has changed throughout history. Marriage changing now is nothing new, but a natural progression of society. Society being pestered by 3000+ year old mores(religion) is nothing new either.

There are certain legal rights that are automatically given upon a marriage that are not given in any other union. We've merely argued that the marriage contract, can allow for homosexual marriage, and is malleable enough to change with the times. It's done this throughout history. Why not now?

What can science say to us that we are not trying to decide for ourselves here?

Science does not discriminate or spread hatred and intolerance.
Your values are not created in a vacuum either Suska. This is NOT a matter of values alone and to say that science shouldn't affect your opinion is just as silly as saying your values shouldn't affect your opinion. Mind you, at times in this conversation we have asked you for some science to support your opinion, and you've ignored it.

Technically, RPA argues against homosexuality and incest. Please don't ignore the extra effort he invests in making sure the word incest shows up every time he mentions homosexuality.

It's his shtick. Heterosexual incest is actually far more common(percentage-wise and all around). He ignores this because facts are inconvenient to his opinion.

Regarding marriage for propagation:
It's clearly not around for just this reason, as marriages occur where propagation is not possible. Marriages are not annulled upon a person being found sterile or old enough to not continue that part of marriage, are they? Propagation is not limited strictly to marriage, is it? Our 1st world countries aren't dying off due to lack of reproduction, are they?

[SpecialOlympian]

It's his shtick. Heterosexual incest is actually far more common(percentage-wise and all around). He ignores this because facts are inconvenient to his opinion.

To be fair, I do the same thing whenever I mention racist or libertarian ideologies. Or whenever I speak of Ron Paul and how he allegedly sodomized a baby to death which his son Rand Paul then, allegedly, had one of his followers curb stomp.

[Rei Murasame]

Let's just give tax breaks and benefits to anyone who has a dependant under the age 18 and is seeking to satisfy these criteria:

• absence of conflict;
• high levels of co-operation,
• trust,
• ease and cohesion;
• high levels of warmth and care;
• high levels of social connection and support;
• stable mental health of the primary caregivers,
• and good physical health of family members.

The whole point is basically to produce good children, so the focus of our programmes should be to ensure that this goal is being pursued before anything can start going wrong. Whether they are married or not really is irrelevant.

People who want to use the system to narrowly prescribe one specific type of family are, in my view, misguided because the outcome of that will be that everyone outside the 'prescribed unit' will just do poorly... and they'll keep doing poorly.

Helping everyone is far better:

Child welfare programs are financed jointly by the national and local governments, with the national government meeting most of the costs. Matching ratios differ according to the type of program. In general, the national government bears a heavier financial burden for income support programs than for health and social service programs. For the Child Allowance program, the national government finances two-thirds of the cost, and local governments pay the remaining one-third when the head of the beneficiary's family is not employed. When the head of the family is employed, the national government finances two-tenths; local governments, one-tenth; and the employer, the remaining seven-tenths of the costs.

The Child Support Allowance program and the Special Child Dependant's Allowance program are financed entirely by the national government. For the public assistance program, the national government meets four-fifths of the costs, and the local governments meet the remaining one-fifth. The national government provides two-thirds of the expenditures for the loan program for female-headed families with children, and the local governments, one-third. Most of the operating costs of health and social services programs for children are split evenly between the national and local governments.

There are exceptions, however. The national government meets eight-tenths of the operating costs of child guidance centres and residential facilities for female-headed families with children, and the local governments meet the remaining two-tenths. The national government meets one-third of the costs of the maternal and child health program and the program of home-based services for disabled children, and the local governments meet the remaining two-thirds.

The elaborate loan system for female-headed families not only helps them to rejoin the mainstream of society but prevents them from becoming a public charge.

[...]the Japanese seem to understand that caring for children is everyone's responsibility. Such a consensus seems to be easy to reach in a society that values collectivism over individualism. In such a cultural environment, the concern about work disincentives seems remote when it comes to the issue of paying taxes to support programs for children. Finally, female-headed families are not looked at with disdain and scorn, as is often the case in the United States. The special provisions for them indicate that Japanese society does not consider them potentially permanent social dependants. Rather, the society seems to be sending a message that not only are they welcome to get back into the mainstream - the world of work - but that the society is ready to help them do so.

Japanese policy-makers seem most interested in the development of the skills, resources, and human capital of every child born in Japan. They understand that the development of the human resources of all children is the key to meeting the challenge of preparing Japan for the twenty-first century, when the country will have to support a large elderly population and meet even stiffer global economic competition. Thus, Japanese policy-makers clearly link child welfare policy to social policy for the elderly and to economic policy. By using an investment strategy, they have solved the problem of poverty, for the most part, as well. Furthermore, it is because they have such a coherent vision for developing child welfare programs that the Japanese have succeeded in generating wide public support for expanding child welfare programs. Certainly, an investment strategy entails more expenditures; however, it may be more effective and even more efficient in the long run.

[Suska]

You are confusing "value in propagation" with "athiesm - religious justification for marriage" .

Valuing propagation is a secular arguement for Marriage - that there is some societal value to propagation; that we should give the union that is able to propagate a special term.

Religious justification - would be that God somehow reserved the term marriage .. to be between only a man and woman.

I haven't confused anything. I haven't even tried to give a religious justification or any sort of justification for marriage, merely pointed out that the matter is value based. I could make a list of the values which marriage is subject to, but I can't make a list of the ways science can have an opinion of the matter, so a resort to statistics or polls is always going to be a resort to the public. In which case people have their feelings on the matter, these can be discussed reasonably or not, but that's all. There's not going to be proof even if you compare societies with different systems because societies are different and similar in a myriad of ways.

Godstud, you have no idea what religion or values are, that's why you're having trouble understanding what I'm saying, you react to projections in your own mind. And you put such a egoistic spin on everything you say to me it's really gross. I suggest you read my posts about half as quickly as you do, if you can do that, can you also give me the benefit of the doubt that I've given it some thought?

[yiwahikanak]

I could make a list of the values which marriage is subject to,

You constantly talk about these things as absolutes, which is flat out ridiculous. You absolutely cannot produce a list of 'the values which marriage is subject to' which can be in any way authoritative, objective, or anything beyond your own opinion on the matter. Yet you keep pretending to be stating facts.

Someone did not adequately learn the difference between facts and opinions in elementary school...tsk tsk!

[Godstud]

That would a totally logical thing, Rei. I am not sure that people would be happy with how this would change marriage, though. Any change to marriage is met with ferocious opposition, because change is feared where religion is concerned.

Right now the fact remains that marriage has a lot of benefits attached to it, regardless of whether they have dependents or plan to have dependents. Propagation, a key part of marriage, according to Suska, is NOT truly a requirement of marriage. People can get married and not have children without social stigma. Therefore, using propagation in marriage as an argument against homosexual marriage is, to me, absurd.

Suska, trying to make a judgment of me and my values, based on how much your narrow-minded perception has gathered from this conversation, is the epitome of conceit. I know what religion and values are. Don't assume you can lecture me.

Perhaps you should read what people are typing and respond to facts with something more than talk of your opinion, of which we've heard consistently. You talk of giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you've given it some thought. Still, you don't actually respond with more than your opinions. You are under the impression that your opinion is more important than facts, and that they can exist irrespective of facts. Don't talk to me about ego.

[Suska]

I would put compassion at the top of the list because it's selfless. Traditionally a man may feel for a woman in such a way that they wish to protect them as themselves. This is easily extended to protection of a woman who is breast-feeding the man's child, who may also be felt for and protected. I think 'protection' is a limited term that doesn't describe the full range of selfless interests a man may have for a woman, but along those lines that a man may want to help a woman find some dignity and intelligence. Which is not to say that women don't have anything to teach a man, but it rides heavily against the traditional understanding that women are rather more focused on immediate and carnal matters, smaller, and generally less rational. I think this will speak to some of you of a bias, but you only need to have some experience to know that men are typically attracted to smaller females and females to larger males. To understand why, I am suggesting that there is a matter of being helpful - for which equals have no real need. We have a saying, "opposites attract" that carries that essential understanding, not that very different people tend to like each other - assuredly they do not - but in matters of desire there is either a compassion factor or some sort of cruelty based on malice.

More egositically, desire is a shallow basis for coupling, but it alone is enough to bond people, desire and various forms of confirmation both social and personal are what people generally mean by love these days, the bastard child of romantic love, without compassion this basis has proven fickle and volatile. It is no longer romantic in that vows are not taken seriously, and as has been suggested the matter need have no financial, familial or sacred overtones. Partly the problem here is the abandonment of extended families in that they supplied social motive - even to an egoist - to stay together and work things out. Even an egoistical basis for marriage can develop into a compassionate one and form the basis for maturation of either partner as - being stuck with each other - a lot of matters will surface and be dealt with as time passes.

Further along and even less binding these days, the social motive alone can, as previously suggested, work wonders and bond people who initially had little desire for each other. This is well proven and practical and again generally depends on an extended family arrangement - even where families live separately. Social pressures involve all sorts of social matters especially child bearing and rearing in a context of significant inheritance, but also, reputation, where a bachelor is generally seen as a philanderer and unstable, with some justification.

In general as I've highlighted there are three prominent values to which an opinion may be attached; that of compassion, desire and family. The first is never mentioned, the second worshiped, and the third virtually irrelevant now days. What we have to base marriage on now is fucking, plain and simple. And it hardly matters if a mate is weak or insane, they're meant to know what's good for themselves. Therefore marriage usually means temporary monogamy, and yet it's meant to carry as much weight in sacredness as an arrangement of a strong person watching out for and helping to improve a weak person. Love according to Platonism (not Platonic love). All of these values have implications for the future of a group of people, whether you value nation, family, race, religion - whatever, even desire is a value judgement about the future since by selection of a mate one propagates a morphology in the same way ranchers breed their animals.

What's ridiculous is that any of the above will now be ridiculed as opinion by someone who is clearly bigoted and probably insane.

[yiwahikanak]

To flesh out the post I already made addressing the procreation argument:

Perry v. Schwarzenegger:

21. California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate.

a. Cal Fam Code § 300 et seq;

b. In re Marriage Cases, 183 P3d 384, 431 (Cal 2008) (“This contention [that marriage is limited to opposite-sex couples because only a man and a woman can produce children biologically related to both] is fundamentally flawed[.]”);

c. Lawrence v Texas, 539 US 558, 604-05 (2003) (Scalia, J, dissenting) (“If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct ... what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘the liberty protected by the Constitution’? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.”);

d. Tr 222:22-223:22 (Cott: “There has never been a requirement that a couple produce children in order to have a valid marriage. Of course, people beyond procreative age have always been allowed to marry .... [P]rocreative ability has never been a qualification for marriage.”).

[yiwahikanak]

*snip sexist bullshit about women being inferior, etc*


What's ridiculous is that any of the above will now be ridiculed as opinion by someone who is clearly bigoted and probably insane.

Right. Anyone who denies that what you said is fact, is bigoted and probably insane. It couldn't possibly be you, talking out of your ass, who is the bigot...and I wouldn't go so far as to call you insane, because that's a pretty ridiculous accusation. Incapable of understanding that your opinions are not fact, yes.

It's really nice that you have theories. Lots of people have theories. They usually try to find evidence that support their theories. You don't bother.

I certainly can't continue to take you seriously anymore. Though I was hoping for a better debate than what you were able to marshal.

[Godstud]

What's ridiculous is that any of the above will now be ridiculed as opinion by someone who is clearly bigoted and probably insane.

Compassion: even homosexuals have a need to want to protect the person they love. Sexual orientation is irrelevant in regards to this. Even homosexuals can feel compassion for children(adopted). Opposites attract because people are attracted to people who are a contradiction to themselves or have personality traits different from theirs that they may wish they had. This does make for initial attraction, but long-term relationships tend to be founded on similar personality traits.

Desire: A great part of marriage is founded in this. Desire is not reserved solely for heterosexuals. Most failed short-term marriages are because this component is preeminent.

Family: You don't need to have children to have a family. Family is also brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, and in-laws. Homosexuals can also have a family in that they can adopt children.
Adoption by same-sex couples is legal in every province and the Northwest Territories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption

All the values you listed can, or are, also present in a homosexual marriage. The sole difference lies in their sexual orientation, religious barriers(mores), and that they cannot propagate through sexual intercourse. Now, do you see me ridiculing what you said? I can certainly disagree that the degree to which these values are present in a marriage, will vary substantially, from case to case.

All of these values have implications for the future of a group of people, whether you value nation, family, race, religion - whatever, even desire is a value judgement about the future since by selection of a mate one propagates a morphology in the same way ranchers breed their animals.

No. In fact, ranchers breeding their animals have none of those values in mind when they are breeding their animals. Ranchers are only interested in offspring as it relates to meat/milk/wool/production, etc. (genetics), not nation, family, race or religion. The morphology is only present if you make only the most shallow comparison.

[Suska]

You absolutely cannot produce a list of 'the values which marriage is subject to' which can be in any way authoritative, objective, or anything beyond your own opinion on the matter. Yet you keep pretending to be stating facts.

This is what I provided.

All the values you listed can, or are, also present in a homosexual marriage.

As usual, the heterophobe has to jump to the conclusion that my point is that homosexuality is ebil!. You cause yourself way to much grief for all that I actually say, which is why I asked you to read my posts slower, it's evident - painfully evident - that you read a lot into my posts.

Ranchers are only interested in offspring as it relates to meat/milk/wool/production, etc.

even desire is a value judgement about the future since by selection of a mate one propagates a morphology in the same way ranchers breed their animals.

Meat, wool, etc are morphological. I am a rancher by the way. I was particularly thinking about dogs when I said that but you have a difficult time understanding me and just love thinking you know what I'm trying to say don't you? In the case of breeding animals the desire for the particular morphology isn't usually a personal desire, but a desirable trait.

Get over yourself Godstud, seriously.

[Headache]

Suska... you scare me haha. You're clearly an intelligent person but you have a very warped sense of reality. I didn't even think the combination was possible.

[Suska]

Yeah, I've already explained what the problem is. You too Headache, you read a lot into what I'm saying and jump to conclusion and then assault me personally after insisting I find someone else's opinion on my values and understanding about the way the world is. You guys essentially continually try to shut down any profitable conversation because you hate the possibility that a reasoning person might want to suggest something you don't agree with. Really you lump me in with ignorant people and in that act prove your own ignorance, if you can't address what I HAVE SAID, we aren't even talking, you're just a bunch of barking dogs.

[Godstud]

As usual, the heterophobe has to jump to the conclusion that my point is that homosexuality is ebil!. You cause yourself way to much grief for all that I actually say, which is why I asked you to read my posts slower, it's evident - painfully evident - that you read a lot into my posts.

You've only been opposing the whole idea of homosexual marriage throughout this thread. How could I possibly come to any other conclusion? You base your primary idea of marriage on propagation and when I show how homosexuals can have the same values when it comes to marriage, you turn it into some sort of attack on your position. I wasn't arguing against the values you presented.

This whoL thread is about homosexuals marrying each other, which is why it's mentioned so prominently in my post. Trying to read heterophobe is reactionary, at best.

Your morphology example was rudimentary, at best, and poorly conceived, at worst. Desire is an emotion, not a value judgment. You may have a desire for a value, but it's not a value, in and of, itself.

selection of a mate one propagates a morphology in the same way ranchers breed their animals.

The morphology is not similar unless you consider people propagating for select biological traits. This has nothing to do with marriage, as you've tried to explain it in terms of values. Therefore the morphology of breeding animals is not really a good comparison to marriage among humans.

You are saying it's about values. The rest of us are saying that it's not all about values. You're the one who's failing to see what is being said. We've shown that there is evidence that marriage, as an institution/contract is not just based on values. You can't seem to address this argument in any way. It's not us failing to understand your argument, but us wanting you to actually address our argument, instead of constantly falling back on your value opinion, which, while not being truly homophobic, is a direct aversion to even discussing homosexual marriage directly.