Gay Marriage

Not if they CAN'T have children, geez. Some people are physically incapable of having children, that is what I was referring to.

And no, it is not the government's job to dictate morals.

 

Dude, the guy said a heterosexual couple who can't have children. Like if the woman's barren or the guy's impotent or whatever. Way to ignore a pertinent issue.

 

Like I said again, the (non gay) couple who gets married has the potential to have children , yes they cannot physically have children, but it is not like the gay scenario where the anatomy does not match.

You cannot take away a heterosexual couple's right to marry just because one of them has a defective gene or a problem in their anatomy.

 

By the same logic, America shouldn't have abolished slavery because it led to mass unemployment amongst blacks. In the long run, after the initial culture shock, it will do more good and less harm.

As to the rationality issue, can you seriously not see the disparity here? You say that women who wish to remain subhuman and devoid of equal rights would not be considered rational, but you don't transfer that across to homosexuals?

 

Most gay people believe they were gay from the moment they were born. Does that not carry as much weight as a physical anomaly? It's something that prevents them from procreating.

 

On a family trip many years ago, I was told "Home is where your bicycle is." That seems like a pretty good defintion. Home is the base from which you face the world. Home is not just a physical location, but also the place of safety, security and help. Stability, community (both within the home and as a part of a larger society), and a commitment to the future are all aspects of "home." That this notion of "home" is idealized and not always realized is unimportant. It is important that the ideal is there and that people (including homosexual couples) are reaching for it. It is also worth noting that home has been our species base for millenia.

I am a bit confused about your attitude towards the women's movement. I don't recall any significant legal change that came from it. Rape shield laws, the family leave act, some child support laws, but nothing that has had large effect.

I am also surprised that you said, "I, for one, am happy to have finally arrived at a suitable conclusion on the matter." I am not sure what kind of conclusion you are talking about. Is it a setteling of issues in your mind, on this forum, or in the world. If the latter, I must disagree that a conclusion has been reached.

I did not read any refutation of my basic point that gay marriage is a reiteration of the importance of the home (however idealized) and that society should sanction and support it

 

May be if one of them goes through a sex change operation to marry his/her partner , then it makes sense.

 

Jedi,

I think that society benifits from stable partnerships whether or not they produce children.

Consider, in your neighborhood there is someone who has been around forever. Everyone knows this person (actualy it is usualy a family). You may or may not socialize with them, but when it hits the fan, when you need someone to help, everyone knows these people and can look to them for help.
Please don't read too much into this example. Unfortunatly, there are neighborhoods without such people. I hope that I did illustrate that society benifits from stable couples regardless of their kids.

That is the value to a community of a stable partnership. It is not the children. (Although having kids does increase peoples intrests in the community.)


(Sorry, I've got to run. I'll check the thread next time I get a chance.)

 

That is the most contemptable piece of toss logic I've ever heard. By the same logic, there was no reason to legalise mixed race marriages, when one of the partners could just wear make-up or take hormone therapy to change the pigmentation of their skin.

Seriously, come back when you have a fucking clue.

 

I agree... but then again it doesn't pertain to this issue now does it?

 

responses have been fast and furious today.

I've gotta go outside to smoke a joint right now.

 

haha, yea... but I don't see the point about legalizing gay marriage, so when you come back , tell me what that is.

 

I think it's similar to the debate about legalising cannabis: there's no real reason to legalise it, but there's no real reason to keep it illegal either. i realise there are disparities in this, but I equate them since a lot of the moral objections to it seem to be either completely unfounded or based on suspect or speculative evidence. In those circumstances, it just comes down to whether you want to be safe and boring and not do something, or just do it and see what happens rather than speculate about what might go wrong and never do anythng.

 

You can't experiment on the general public, you can't do something radical just because the current law is "boring". The government is ruling so many people.

 

So? It worked with civil rights, it worked with feminism. Sure, there were bad effects of those, but the good effects outweigh them. The alternative is what OSF suggests, which is to remain under a system you know to be unjust.

 

You're the forth person to question it.

My shit started back around page 33. Can't you just read it?

I don't mind going over it again, but ... fuck it's already there!

 

What?!?! That isn't what I'm saying at all!!!!

I can't possibly know whether or not what we have now is more just or unjust than what you are proposing we ought have!!!

By what theoretical model can we say that the change you are proposing is more just than what we have now?

 

You keep going on about theoretical models, it's rather tedious. In reality, no-one knows what would happen, you just have to extrapolate out from what the present situation is. You did, earlier on, say that you considered the current system unjust. I didn't say that changing it would necessarily make it more or less so, but in the absence of a means for predicting the future, and being unwilling to guess, you are presented with a basic choice: a system which you believe to be unjust, or a system which may or may no be unjust. Which do you go for?

 

I will contend that America did the right thing regardless of the economic consequences. You don’t think that a comparison of employment as an effect, to the impoverishment of the child can be seriously made, do you? I know which I would value more, much more.

I do contend that women who wished to remain unequal to their human counterparts were irrational and could not provide a reasonable argument on their own behalf. I haven’t ever heard of such an argument. To make what you say completely valid, you should provide that evasive argument. I have not encountered a valid argument yet.

I do not. I have heard from a homosexual man in a relationship with another homosexual that allowing marriage to be redefined may lead to irreparable changes to the fabric of society.

Fuck, dude, do you think I am coming up with all this?

 

The point isn’t that we should find the absolute certainty on what may come. The point is that we should make the most informed decision on the matter that we can. If that means not deciding anything until we have considered ‘all’ the evidence, than so be it. You are right that no one can know for certain what will happen. But we do have a way of figuring probabilities.

Wouldn’t it be better to wait and get as close to certain as we can before we do something that may potentially make society more unjust than it is now?

I don’t see why it shouldn’t be tedious. Who said making society better was going to be easy?