The logical argument

smegmar

Just to clarify I'm atheist, and some of my best friends have been gay. I'm not doing any gay bashing here, just some intelligent points I want to put to you all.

Firstly to clarify this is "The logical argument against same sex marriage" and most definitely not "the logical argument against homosexuals; the practice of homosexuality and/or any opposition to traditional marriage".

What we plan to underline is why two members of the same sex should not gain the legal, financial and social equality to other marriage types. Firstly we must clearly and concretely define what we are speaking about.
The two words that come up are "Marriage" and "Same-sex/Homosexual". Now we shall look at "marriage" and define what it means in this instance.

Marriage is a social institution almost as old as first human civilisation. It has existed in many forms, in many different cultures, some group, some polygamous, and very rarely same sex, but the overwhelming majority in all cultures is the "traditional" marriage of one man to one woman. When you consider how old the tradition of marriage is, it must be clear that marriage is an important and universal concept. Originally marriage between a man and a woman was a contract of sexual exclusivity in order to ensure paternity of any offspring. In short a behaviour so that a man will know that any children his wife bares are biologically his own, of course the woman will already know. We see here that exclusive marriages are a behaviour that ensure a man will spend his time caring for his own biological children and not those of another man. Biologically this is hugely beneficial and time saving for males that previously needed to defend jealously defend any woman which whom they had mated. Also the woman ensures a male that will protect and care for her young. Both parties win in this situation and so the institution of heterosexual marriage was seen as very important and bound into culture and religions of the world.

Here's a dictionary definition to use later on. Marriage: "a behavioural contract of life-long sexual exclusivity, between two or more parties, in order for a male to ensure paternity of young born to a female." We'll come back to this a little bit later.

Secondly we must tackle the homosexuality part. Homosexuality has also existed for a very long time, also somewhere around the beginning of civilisation, however this was considered, until recently, as an activity rather then a lifestyle or predisposition. Ancient Greeks seemed to show strong preference for any extended period of time. Now let us look at the word homosexual and define it. Merriam Webster defines it as so; "of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex". Though there is still some debate whether homosexuality is a conscious choice, We will use the addition of "sexual desire, and acting upon these desires, toward another of the same sex".

So now we have two behaviours. Marriage and homosexuality. Both aren't physically compatible as we have noted them, as marriage requires one partner to bare children. A person can only act in both if we remove "in order for a male to ensure paternity of young born to a female". Are two statements read as follows;
"A behavioural contract of life-long sexual exclusivity between two or more parties."
" A tendency to direct sexual desire, and acting upon these desires, toward another of the same sex."

Now both of these definitions are possible for someone, so inclined to simultaneously accomplish.
Given the base of liberty and freedom of choice in most western constitutions, neither of these actions effect anyone outside of the marrying persons and cannot be objected against, so problem solved? Sadly not, this is not considered a "gay marriage" by those advocating for it's legalisation. Rather a long term gay sexual relationship. In essence Gay marriage has been legal in most western countries for many years, and yet there is still a campaign to "legalise gay marriage".

To understand this continued effort we must once again alter our aforementioned definition of marriage. What is being campaigned, debated and legislated for is civil marriage rights equal to that of Heterosexual "traditional" marriage. This includes but is not limited to: prison visitation rights, will and inheritance rights, tax deductions and incentives, social acceptance and normalisation and legal recognition of union. Adoption right by same-sex couples has been purposely omitted as we see it as a different issue.

Some issues listed above should be compatible with constitutional rights, effecting no person outside of the marrying persons, such as visitation rights and inheritance rights. A problem is caused with Tax deductions or incentives, Legal recognition of union, and social acceptance.

Tax deductions and incentives for "traditional" married couples were introduced as a way to encourage couples to marry and make a stable base for raising their biological children. However if this is applied to a same-sex couple, discounting the possibility of adoption, the tax deduction or investment is fruitless. All tax payers would then be effected by the act of same-sex marriage. They must have the right to object, just as any taxpayer can object to any governmental tax reduction or spending initiative.

Furthermore social acceptance is no something any amount of legislation or lobbying can change. It is the collective opinion of a populous on a subject, which must be left to the individuals free will. Should a governmental body act in any way to influence the opinions of its people, positively or negatively, it would be an offence to the free judgement of it's citizens and unbiased nature of any constitution.

The third and final point Legal recognition of Union is difficult as it brings us back to one of our original points and the exact definition of homosexual. What is it to be homosexual? Nature or Nurture? Is it something that should be something governments or organisations do to encourage? Do we accept it as equal in all aspects or differentiate the clear deviations from the norm? These are all very difficult moral and philosophical questions that each person can come to their own answer which in any case is philosophically right. Therefore only by referendum can any legislation on the union of same-sex couples be accepted as valid and lawful.

Now I hope you can see that there is logical non religious reasoning against same sex marriage, even if it has not changed your mind maybe you can think and act differently in the debate on this issue. As always, more information, more knowledge and more opinions, are immeasurably beneficial to intelligent debate that furthers society.

Captain Graphite

Here's a dictionary definition to use later on. Marriage: "a behavioural contract of life-long sexual exclusivity, between two or more parties, in order for a male to ensure paternity of young born to a female." We'll come back to this a little bit later.

And which top selling 18th Century dictionary does this definition come from? Here's a more modern one from Merriam-Webster: as you can see, it includes a reference to same sex marriage and nothing whatsoever about child bearing.

Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

So now we have two behaviours. Marriage and homosexuality. Both aren't physically compatible as we have noted them, as marriage requires one partner to bare children.

Since when have children been a requirement? Plenty of married couples choose not to have children. Others are physically incapable due to infertility or other medical issues. Should these couples have their marriage licences revoked because some archaic dictionary states that children must be present for it to be a "traditional marriage"?

Furthermore social acceptance is no something any amount of legislation or lobbying can change. It is the collective opinion of a populous on a subject, which must be left to the individuals free will. Should a governmental body act in any way to influence the opinions of its people, positively or negatively, it would be an offence to the free judgement of it's citizens and unbiased nature of any constitution.

Gay-bashing, homophobic discrimination etc. are certainly acts that governments should endeavour to act upon, regardless of how many "dem gheys iz unnatural" voices happen to be among the populace. You can't force social acceptance but you can, and should, prevent violence and discrimination. If Johnny down the road wants to say how much he hates the gays, then that's his business. But if he bashes someone's skull in for being gay, then that's an entirely different matter.

The third and final point Legal recognition of Union is difficult as it brings us back to one of our original points and the exact definition of homosexual. What is it to be homosexual? Nature or Nurture? Is it something that should be something governments or organisations do to encourage?

What, should the government encourage people to be gay?! Is that a serious question? I think pretty much all LGBT people will tell you that sexuality is not something you can change on a whim; you can't flick a switch from gay to straight or ransgender to cisgender. Are straight people only straight because they choose to be that way?

I really don't see much logic or intelligent argument against gay marriage in that post tbh.

bodice ripper

If you think that is a strong argument, you need to read more. Not about same-sex marriage as such, anything would do.

checkcheek

Ye gotta agree. I don't see any logic. Once I read that a marriage needs kids to be valid I stopped reading. Cause there is no logic at all in that.

Ambersky

Id say smegmar the way you put the title The Logical argument suggest you are putting your post up against the Illogical argument which would be ours here in the LGBT forum. Yours is logical and the counter arguments are likely to be deemed Illogical as you have already set up the bar for what is considered logic.

some of my best friends have been gay

Puullleease!
and just noticed have been gay.

You are just giving us some intelligent points, sigh.
In case you havent noticed there is already a thread here on marriage.
I think this is a set up to get us all to argue with you for your entertainment I dont think you are open to learning anything or changing your mind. I predict you will pronounce every counter argument as not measuring up to your logic. Its pointless to get involved.
But your post is a pretty good example of why we should have a good look at some of the patriarchal roots of traditional marriage, which didn't work in favor of women, and make sure we dont copy it.
Oh and by the way your representation of heterosexual relationships as one of mistrust and having to make sure the child is yours and forcing someone to stay with you legally sounds really awful. I guess it has been really awful.
Are you just looking for an excuse to troll around here smegmar? Is your board name a clue?

Aurongroove

yeah dude, sorry. your logic is non existent.

Annasopra

furthermore social acceptance is no something any amount of legislation or lobbying can change. It is the collective opinion of a populous on a subject, which must be left to the individuals free will. Should a governmental body act in any way to influence the opinions of its people, positively or negatively, it would be an offence to the free judgement of it's citizens and unbiased nature of any constitution.

Indeed. Social acceptance of what? Slavery? Black civil rights in America or South Africa? Civil rights of catholics in Northern Ireland?

Babybuff

I don't think that'kind of logic would arouse a vulcan tbf

Pedant

Just because you used a thesaurus to write that doesn't mean it's a logical argument.

wonderfulname

That's not logical at all, which is a massive achievement on the part of the author considering the "logic" is mostly derived from premises that are just plain wrong, for example that homosexuality is a behaviour that may be encouraged, or that marriage is the reserve of the procreating, or even that there is such a thing as "homosexual marriage".

Also, I have to say, prefacing an argument with a claim you are an atheist doesn't mask the fact said argument is based on traditional religious values rather than any form of rational thinking.

foggy_lad

But hey procreation is what it is all about! we are all doomed to burn for all eternity if we don't procreate and add to the millions who pay their dues to the holy church plate every sunday.

When I read "Just to clarify I'm atheist, and some of my best friends have been gay." I immediately thought What are those best friends now? did they vapourise or turn into swans or donkeys? They have been gay but since found jesus? they have been gay but are now normal again?

Also "I'm not doing any gay bashing here, just some intelligent points I want to put to you all." sounds more like you are laying down some basic Jesus law on our poor misguided heathen heads, As for the rest of the tripe that was served up, I don't read those really long magazine articles that are regularly copy/pasted into posts just to belittle or make people feel inadequate.

Annasopra

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdH1ZEbnIms&feature=youtube_gdata_player

smegmar

ok, So I think I should clarify some points that have been grossly misinterpreted.

Firstly I said logically because I don't use person experience or emotional arguments here nor is there any bible verses or religious grounding. Despite what "foggy lad" said, I don't think anyone will burn in hell, I don't think there is a hell, and I don't think any of you are heathens. Nor am I belittling anyone here. I am describing marriage from a scientific anthropological point of view.

My definition of Marriage of marriage comes from it's original intent and main purpose about 50,000- 5000 years ago. The definition can change to anything you want, but it was until recently a very solid social institution for a singular goal.

I must apologise for an oversight in my first article, stating that marriage is only for the birth of children. Of course not, there are elements of social bonding, strengthening relationships and general enjoyment. I tried to say that just one of the core reasons for traditional marriage was to make a stable bonded family, creating a situation that would be better >>Should the couple choose to have children<<. I omitted the optional part as the vast majority of traditional married couples through out time have had children.

Imagine this metaphor A leather whip was originally used to herd cows. Now days I'm sure there are many other great applications for a leather whip, none of which involve a cow. So it's good for many reasons, but that doesn't mean it wasn't originally designed to move cows.

Please stop ad hominem attacks and general ungrounded insults.

smegmar

PS referring to the quote "some of my best friends have been gay"

I meant that I have since moved away and lost contact, so that I sadly cannot consider them best friends any more. I'm pretty sure they're still gay, maybe they're regulars in this forum.

libnation

Just how beenficial is this 50,000 year old tradition?

Saying that a man needs to know that his children are "biologically his own so marriage is important for this reason" assumes that women sleep around with millions of men and that they automatically cannot have sex with other men once they are married.

On the flip side, if a woman sleeps around with a lot of men who will then deny the child is theirs and refuse to help out - marriage still could not stop this happening! The woman still slept around with these type of men whether she was married or not.

Religion, for all of its shortcomings, tried to stop the above happening with their rules about no sex before marriage etc! But it brought with it a whole host of other problems and we should learn from the mistakes of religion but still try and apply what it was trying to achieve (if we want to ensure that children grow up in safe environments we now have things like social services, adoption, foster families (which incidentally could be increased ten fold by allowing gay marriage)).

foggy_lad

libnation wrote: »

Just how beenficial is this 50,000 year old tradition?

Saying that a man needs to know that his children are "biologically his own so marriage is important for this reason" assumes that women sleep around with millions of men and that they automatically cannot have sex with other men once they are married.

On the flip side, if a woman sleeps around with a lot of men who will then deny the child is theirs and refuse to help out - marriage still could not stop this happening! The woman still slept around with these type of men whether she was married or not.

Religion, for all of its shortcomings, tried to stop the above happening with their rules about no sex before marriage etc! But it brought with it a whole host of other problems and we should learn from the mistakes of religion but still try and apply what it was trying to achieve (if we want to ensure that children grow up in safe environments we now have things like social services, adoption, foster families (which incidentally could be increased ten fold by allowing gay marriage)).

There are thousands of men who have one and more children to one or more wives and girlfriends who contribute absolutely nothing after conception regardless of knowing about the pregnancy and birth but will tell all and sundry about their first born son and their children will be talked about as if trophies, where do these parasites fit into the scheme?

smegmar

foggy_lad wrote: »

where do these parasites fit into the scheme?

They don't. That's why they're parasites. Any man not willing to take responsibility for a child that he fathered in my mind is criminally negligent.

I'm not saying traditional marriage is prefect, in fact I want to change it a great deal too, but I don't see how gay marriage is advantageous society as a whole beyond those who want to get married.

foggy_lad

smegmar wrote: »

They don't. That's why they're parasites. Any man not willing to take responsibility for a child that he fathered in my mind is criminally negligent.

I'm not saying traditional marriage is prefect, in fact I want to change it a great deal too, but I don't see how gay marriage is advantageous society as a whole beyond those who want to get married.

Is that because you have been brainwashed into thinking that procreation is our sole purpose in life?

cgcsb

It is not a logical argument at all. In the first instance you say that adoption by gay couples is a separate issue and therefore you dismiss gay couples raising children.

Then you say that raising children is the primary function of heterosexual marriage and is the reason why we provide legal and financial benefits to heterosexual couples in a marriage.

So in one foul swoop you've created an uneven playing field in your own arguement i.e. heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry because they raise children and homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed marry even if they are raising children

your reasoning for this is that adoption by gay couples is a separate issue, which is completely false.

Also you place weight behind heterosexual marriage because they raise their own biological children. While you ignore heterosexual infertility and the enormous number of adopted children in the world.

In short your argument is a steaming pile of sh*te concocted by a phobe who managed to thumb his/her way through a dictionary while avoiding use of red neck cliché. The argument you present is also needlessly long and wordy, a technique often used by pseudo academics in the hope that people won't be arsed to read the whole thing and skip to the conclusion so as to create the illusion of a logical argument.

Captain Graphite

smegmar wrote: »

Imagine this metaphor A leather whip was originally used to herd cows. Now days I'm sure there are many other great applications for a leather whip, none of which involve a cow. So it's good for many reasons, but that doesn't mean it wasn't originally designed to move cows.

Right so if a straight couple can legally own a leather whip, even if they have no intention of herding cows, then why shouldn't a gay couple (cowless or otherwise) be able to own one too?

And for any couple, gay or straight, who are not herding cows, is their leather whip any less of a leather whip than that of a cow-herding couple?

(I really wish you hadn't chosen leather whip btw; makes it sound like the argument is heading into BDSM territory! :pac:)

xsiborg

OP i dont know where you copied that text from but all it is, is just spurious nonsense, no logic in your opening statement either maintaining you are an atheist, yet posting that text with such a religious bent to it that i almost doubled over laughing at the irony.

if this was an attempt at getting a rise, your post falls well short of the mark! oh, i passed the humor forum on the way in here, perhaps your post might get better traction in there?

yeah, i doubt it too.

xsiborg

Captain Graphite wrote: »

(I really wish you hadn't chosen leather whip btw; makes it sound like the argument is heading into BDSM territory! :pac:)

you say that like its a bad thing captain?

Pedant

smegmar wrote: »

They don't. That's why they're parasites. Any man not willing to take responsibility for a child that he fathered in my mind is criminally negligent.

I'm not saying traditional marriage is prefect, in fact I want to change it a great deal too, but I don't see how gay marriage is advantageous society as a whole beyond those who want to get married.

It's not, really. However, should someone or something that is of no advantage to society be done away with? Using that argument you go down a slippery slope that eventually leads to things like forced euthanasia, etc...

Captain Graphite

xsiborg wrote: »

you say that like its a bad thing captain?

I'm sure kids read this forum. Don't wanna corrupt their innocent little minds now do we?

1ZRed

I fcking love it when straight people argue and fight against anything gay related. It doesn't effect you. It never will. Get over it.

Annasopra

Mod comment

Could we argue the point rather than hopping up and down and having a go at the OP personally

Annasopra

Marriage is a social institution almost as old as first human civilisation. It has existed in many forms, in many different cultures, some group, some polygamous, and very rarely same sex, but the overwhelming majority in all cultures is the "traditional" marriage of one man to one woman.

Indeed. But surely this demonstrates several things - A) The institution of marriage can and does change throughout history. It is not and has not always been the traditional form of one man and woman (children as young as 12 were allowed to marry in 1937 when Bunreacht na hEireann came in) same sex marriage actually did exist in the past (you're even admitting this yourself) and even a form a form of Christian same sex marriage existed See same sex unions in Pre modern Europe

. We see here that exclusive marriages are a behaviour that ensure a man will spend his time caring for his own biological children and not those of another man. Biologically this is hugely beneficial and time saving for males that previously needed to defend jealously defend any woman which whom they had mated. Also the woman ensures a male that will protect and care for her young. Both parties win in this situation and so the institution of heterosexual marriage was seen as very important and bound into culture and religions of the world.

Indeed but again this is quite problematic because the idea of the modern nuclear family is actually quite a modern concept

So now we have two behaviours. Marriage and homosexuality. Both aren't physically compatible as we have noted them, as marriage requires one partner to bare children.

Indeed but then surely marriage for infertile couples should be banned?

Tax deductions and incentives for "traditional" married couples were introduced as a way to encourage couples to marry and make a stable base for raising their biological children. However if this is applied to a same-sex couple, discounting the possibility of adoption, the tax deduction or investment is fruitless.

So infertile couples shouldn't receive any tax benefits

Furthermore social acceptance is no something any amount of legislation or lobbying can change. It is the collective opinion of a populous on a subject, which must be left to the individuals free will. Should a governmental body act in any way to influence the opinions of its people, positively or negatively, it would be an offence to the free judgement of it's citizens and unbiased nature of any constitution.

We could say this about lots of things - Death sentence by hanging, Black/White segregation in the US, Apartheid in South Africa, Voting for women, Housing for Catholics in Northern Ireland

The third and final point Legal recognition of Union is difficult as it brings us back to one of our original points and the exact definition of homosexual. What is it to be homosexual? Nature or Nurture? Is it something that should be something governments or organisations do to encourage? Do we accept it as equal in all aspects or differentiate the clear deviations from the norm? These are all very difficult moral and philosophical questions that each person can come to their own answer which in any case is philosophically right. Therefore only by referendum can any legislation on the union of same-sex couples be accepted as valid and lawful.

On the one hand you say marriage equality shouldn't be allowed because of tax reasons then you say it should be allowed but only by a referendum - not quite a clear position

Now I hope you can see that there is logical non religious reasoning against same sex marriage, even if it has not changed your mind maybe you can think and act differently in the debate on this issue.

I can see that you have used some reasoning. To me your reasoning is actually very similar to some religious reasoning. I don't see any logic in your reasoning.

My definition of Marriage of marriage comes from it's original intent and main purpose about 50,000- 5000 years ago.

The problem is that marriage has actually radically changed since then. I think you're really failing to address that the institution of marriage can and does change. All you seem to be doing is saying - It existed like this so it should permanently exist like this.

xsiborg

smegmar wrote: »

My definition of Marriage of marriage comes from it's original intent and main purpose about 50,000- 5000 years ago. The definition can change to anything you want, but it was until recently a very solid social institution for a singular goal.

tbh the thinking behind the OP is about 5000 years out of date too, as is the cherry picking definitions from several different dictionaries, society has moved on a hell of a lot in the last 30 years which pretty much makes this argument and the thinking behind it, redundant.

smegmar

such a religious bent to it

Please do give examples, I'm just dying to know where you imagined them.

Is that because you have been brainwashed into thinking that procreation is our sole purpose in life?

Maybe not our sole purpose in life, but if you do believe in evolution then you must agree it's pretty high on the list. I might not know what the meaning of life is, but I know I'll make a better world for my children to find out.

I think it's best we forget the whip metaphor, I now see it might be inappropriate.

As I mentioned earlier adoption by same-sex couples is a different issue when we're talking about their ability to raise children, and I don't want to drag that debate into this one. It should be clear that only Heterosexual couples have the ability to produce a child, and that is the beneficial factor I can talk about in this argument. It's good for a nation to have child bearing couples, it's good to have those couples stay together and focus energies on raising their children properly. What good is it for anyone outside of a same-sex couple that they be married? What are the positive affects for me, Johnny not-so interested-in-your-happiness O'Public?

And sure there are married couples that can't conceive, but not allowing them to be married would be discrimination against the "genitalialy" disabled. That is a medical condition; choosing to be in a same-sex marriage is made for ones own personal happiness.

By all means enjoy your long term committed homosexual relationship, but leave it at that.

Annasopra

smegmar wrote: »

Please do give examples, I'm just dying to know where you imagined them.


Maybe not our sole purpose in life, but if you do believe in evolution then you must agree it's pretty high on the list. I might not know what the meaning of life is, but I know I'll make a better world for my children to find out.

I think it's best we forget the whip metaphor, I now see it might be inappropriate.

As I mentioned earlier adoption by same-sex couples is a different issue when we're talking about their ability to raise children, and I don't want to drag that debate into this one. It should be clear that only Heterosexual couples have the ability to produce a child, and that is the beneficial factor I can talk about in this argument. It's good for a nation to have child bearing couples, it's good to have those couples stay together and focus energies on raising their children properly. What good is it for anyone outside of a same-sex couple that they be married? What are the positive affects for me, Johnny not-so interested-in-your-happiness O'Public?

And sure there are married couples that can't conceive, but not allowing them to be married would be discrimination against the "genitalialy" disabled. That is a medical condition; choosing to be in a same-sex marriage is made for ones own personal happiness.

By all means enjoy your long term committed homosexual relationship, but leave it at that.

So basically your argument comes down to

It's good for a nation to have child rearing couples in long term committed relationships where they raise children therefore gay couples should not get tax breaks?

smegmar

Let's quickly compare and contrast the differences between "long term committed homosexual relationship" and "same sex marriage"

---

Marriage

---

long term relationship


legality:

---

long legal proceedings

---

yep, totally

big party:

---

wedding day

---

you can always party

produce children:

---

nope

---

still not

raise children:

---

if someone give you one

---

ditto

tax breaks:

---

taxpayer money

---

not annoying taxpayers

love/happiness:

---

yep

---

yep

visitation rights:

---

yep

---

much shorter legal proceedings

prenuptial agreement:

---

binding

---

freedom

who wears the dress:

---

another reason to fight

---

who cares.

everyone will love you:

---

not the taxpayers

---

stay super you rainbow warriors

xsiborg

smegmar wrote: »

Please do give examples, I'm just dying to know where you imagined them.

the piece as a whole, comes across as why it is in your opinion, morally wrong to introduce gay marriage.

smegmar wrote: »

Maybe not our sole purpose in life, but if you do believe in evolution then you must agree it's pretty high on the list. I might not know what the meaning of life is, but I know I'll make a better world for my children to find out.

i believe in evolution, and i also believe that society evolves and changes, otherwise we'd still be where we were 5000 years ago living in caves and hunting animals for food. i don't know what the meaning of life is myself, but i'd like to think that if one of my future generations of offspring were gay, that they would be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples, and not just "because straight people can get married", but because it will afford them the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples, also in matters of inheritance, etc. gay people are taxpayers too btw!

being gay just happens to be their sexual orientation, it is not who they are as people, in the same way as being straight is just a person's sexual orientation.

smegmar wrote: »

As I mentioned earlier adoption by same-sex couples is a different issue when we're talking about their ability to raise children, and I don't want to drag that debate into this one. It should be clear that only Heterosexual couples have the ability to produce a child, and that is the beneficial factor I can talk about in this argument.

you want to leave the issue of adoption out of it, but really, it's an issue that simply can not be left out of the discussion. if you want a scientific slant on it, then there are many more ways besides adoption that a homosexual couple can avail of to have children. society has evolved past merely a "propagation of the species" argument that you put forward.

smegmar wrote: »

It's good for a nation to have child bearing couples, it's good to have those couples stay together and focus energies on raising their children properly.

see this just comes across as more moral pontificating right there. are same-sex couples incapable of raising children properly in your opinion? i'd like to see what logic or scientific basis you have for this.

smegmar wrote: »

What good is it for anyone outside of a same-sex couple that they be married? What are the positive affects for me, Johnny not-so interested-in-your-happiness O'Public?

well i think you answered your own question all in one there. what "good" is it for anyone outside a heterosexual couple that THEY be married? what are the positive effects for you at all of anyone else whether they choose to marry or not? i dont think any couple have yours or anyone elses happiness in mind when they get married, only their own tbh.

smegmar wrote: »

And sure there are married couples that can't conceive, but not allowing them to be married would be discrimination against the "genitalialy" disabled. That is a medical condition; choosing to be in a same-sex marriage is made for ones own personal happiness.

google couldnt even give me a similar word for "genitalialy", so im not sure i understand what you mean there, so i'll just move on to your next point which is up for the captain obvious statement of the year award. the same would be said too about heterosexual marriage, i know i got married for my own personal happiness, or would you rather think i married for tax "benefits". i use the word "benefits" in inverted commas because believe me, anyone you talk to will tell you that the last reason they got married was for tax benefits- there are none! i made the decision to marry my wife for my own personal happiness.

smegmar wrote: »

By all means enjoy your long term committed homosexual relationship, but leave it at that.

why should they? because you johnny not-so-interested say so? because it makes no difference to YOUR life?

you started off purporting to base your opinion on science and logic, and quickly descended into morality and your own personal opinion, completely diverging away from your own OP. would you care to circle around again and take another bite of the forbidden apple so to speak?

Pedant

smegmar wrote: »

Let's quickly compare and contrast the differences between "long term committed homosexual relationship" and "same sex marriage"

---

Marriage

---

long term relationship


legality:

---

long legal proceedings

---

yep, totally

big party:

---

wedding day

---

you can always party

produce children:

---

nope

---

still not

raise children:

---

if someone give you one

---

ditto

tax breaks:

---

taxpayer money

---

not annoying taxpayers

love/happiness:

---

yep

---

yep

visitation rights:

---

yep

---

much shorter legal proceedings

prenuptial agreement:

---

binding

---

freedom

who wears the dress:

---

another reason to fight

---

who cares.

everyone will love you:

---

not the taxpayers

---

stay super you rainbow warriors

You know you could use that exact same argument for an infertile heterosexual couple. According to your logic, perhaps we ought not to allow infertile heterosexual couples to marry. Would you agree? You should agree, the crux of you argument seems to about reproduction, right?

As for the annoying taxpayers argument, I don't agree that a portion of the money you or your spouse earns is taxpayer's money. Rather it's your money that has been taken either voluntarily or involuntary and placed in government coffers. Regardless, inhibiting marriage equality to prevent a drop in government revenue is not a legitimate argument. I'm sure similar argument could have been used by those against interracial marriage. That's a slippery slop that would pit money and government revenue above the value of fundamental individual human rights.

baby and crumble

Smegmar, I have to admit, I have found it incredibly difficult to follow your line of reasoning. You seem to boil the argument against same sex marriage to tax and children. Using your logic, same sex marriage is bad because the two individuals in the marriage cannot spontaneously make a baby, and that straight people will get mad at the tax benefits we would get.

Lots of couples who get married cannot spontaneously make a baby. This doesn't dilute marriage in any way.

Same sex couples are having children, whether that be through sperm donation, adoption, or surrogacy. You cannot stop this unless you forumalate some kind of Orwellian method to objectively measure every single adults sexuality, and only allow the straight ones to procreate.

So now we arrive at a point where now are you discriminating against two people who are in love creating a legally binding relationship together- which is not just about rights, but also responsibility. Responsibilities seem to be forgotten about in this argument- allowing same sex couples will ensure they are responsible to each other, legally. The are also responsible for any children that enter into the family. Without this, children of same sex couples (who exist, there are many children being raised in Ireland and world wide by same sex parents) are discriminated against also- they run the risk of being removed from the only family they know should something happen to their one biological or adoptive parent. They loose both their parents at once. Or they are not allowed to visit their sick or dying parent in hospital, as legally they are not related. Someone, somewhere, tell me how that is in any way looking out for the best interests of the children? Or the sanctity of the family?

As for the tax issue you raise. Is there some kind of tax allowance ceiling I am not aware of? As I understood, anyone who is eligible for tax allowances gets them. It's not like there's 3000 tax allowances in a year, and if some of the gays get them then all the straight folks loose out. I don't personally don't believe that straight people will 'get mad' if gay people have the same rights as them. Why would they? It makes no sense at all.

Also, on a mod note, could you please not use language that is derogatory toward LGBT individuals? "Rainbow warrior", "Who wears the dress" etc are flippant and frankly detracting from any kind of argument you are trying to make.

pontia

why do gay people feel the need to keep going on about the fact their gay,i dont see hetrosexual pride marches.live your lives.enjoy it.everyone else doesent want to hear about it

baby and crumble

pontia wrote: »

why do gay people feel the need to keep going on about the fact their gay,i dont see hetrosexual pride marches.live your lives.enjoy it.everyone else doesent want to hear about it

Why do straight people feel the need to shut us up?

pontia

whos trying to shut you up exactly ?

smegmar

Ok I'll try clarify once more.

I am not and will not comment on a same-sex couples ability to raise children, that is a different debate.

However their physical ability to produce a child, for the time being, should be consider obviously not possible. Though science may advance later, we will talk about that when it happens.

It is important for this and all other countries to ensure a good birthrate, and good family upbringing for the next generation. This is the future workforce and next level of genii to further our civilisation long after we have passed away. Same-sex couples cannot add to this (yet). (note: this is not moral pontificating, but rational and logical reasoning. Japan is suffering severely right now because it has a very low birthrate and ageing population)

in most cases of "infertile" couples they are not truly infertile, just with such a low sperm or egg count to make the possibility low. There's always IVF.

I can understand that same-sex couples want prison visitation and inheritance rights, but that all could be achieved easily by changing laws regarding to those particular issues, eg rewriting law to read "spouse or partner". That is not a marriage issue.

and here are the ways that gay marriage affects me or anyone else that is an objector.

precedent (incest, object sexuality, and any other weird stuff)

Tax deductions, I'm not going to repeat myself on this.

no possibility of future workforce

increased risk from sham marriages
{not that gay couples are more prone to it, just that it removes some criteria}

psychological affect on children {I don't know if it will be good or bad, but it will be different.}

1ZRed

pontia wrote: »

why do gay people feel the need to keep going on about the fact their gay,i dont see hetrosexual pride marches.live your lives.enjoy it.everyone else doesent want to hear about it

Who do you think suppresses us in society and casts us out on a different and lower level?

Change doesn't happen if you're not heard.

baby and crumble

pontia wrote: »

why do gay people feel the need to keep going on about the fact their gay,i dont see hetrosexual pride marches.live your lives.enjoy it.everyone else doesent want to hear about it

pontia wrote: »

whos trying to shut you up exactly ?

Erm...

pontia

to be honest ive more pressing worries in my own life to care,if you want to marry whoever just get on with it

baby and crumble

smegmar wrote: »

Ok I'll try clarify once more.

I am not and will not comment on a same-sex couples ability to raise children, that is a different debate.

However their physical ability to produce a child, for the time being, should be consider obviously not possible. Though science may advance later, we will talk about that when it happens.

It is important for this and all other countries to ensure a good birthrate, and good family upbringing for the next generation. This is the future workforce and next level of genii to further our civilisation long after we have passed away. Same-sex couples cannot add to this (yet). (note: this is not moral pontificating, but rational and logical reasoning. Japan is suffering severely right now because it has a very low birthrate and ageing population)

in most cases of "infertile" couples they are not truly infertile, just with such a low sperm or egg count to make the possibility low. There's always IVF.

Why are you so hung up on the act of procreation? There are millions of children, across the world, who need families and homes. The world is unable to sustain it's current rate of growth. In the industrialised world, yes many countries are suffering because of low birth rates- however Ireland actually isn't right now, we have the highest birthrate in the EU (at 2.1) and the birthrate in 2009 was the highest Ireland has seen in 118 years. (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0601/1224317059534.html) So declining birthrates is not an argument in Ireland at the current time. And anyway, if you want more babies, then surely opening up marriage, wit it protections for families, will ensure more couple will have children, and raise them to be 'members of the workforce'. Therefore, same sex marriag would actually lead to more children being born.

smegmar wrote: »

I can understand that same-sex couples want prison visitation and inheritance rights, but that all could be achieved easily by changing laws regarding to those particular issues, eg rewriting law to read "spouse or partner". That is not a marriage issue.

Here, if you look at the language you choose to use you are clearly attempting to paint homsexuality in a negative way- wanting 'prison visitation' rights suggests that gay people are criminals, and us looking for 'inheritance rights' suggests we just want more money. I would wager that 99% of the concerns that drive same sex couples to want equal marriage rights are hospital visitation rights, next-of-kin powers so that you can continue to care for your loved one should life go against you, and safegaurds for the children. NONE of which you mention.

smegmar wrote: »

and here are the ways that gay marriage affects me or anyone else that is an objector.

precedent (incest, object sexuality, and any other weird stuff)

Same sex marriage laws would not suddenly open to floodgates for anyone to marry just anyone or anything. They would be for members of the same gender who are unrelated and can consent to being married, to be married. None of the marriage quality campaigns in Ireland that I am aware of are fighting for their rights to marry their sister.

smegmar wrote: »

Tax deductions, I'm not going to repeat myself on this.

Fine, but your argument does not make sense.

smegmar wrote: »

no possibility of future workforce

I have shown above how Ireland, with our current high birth rate is not in any danger of loosing our workforce because of a lack of live births. Allowing same sex marriages would not stop straight couples from having sex and therefore having children. Your argument here makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, having a system wherby same sex couple know that their children would be protected no matter what happens would encourage a higher birthrate in the country, if that is still a concern.

smegmar wrote: »

increased risk from sham marriages
{not that gay couples are more prone to it, just that it removes some criteria}

They would be subject to the same checks as heterosexual marriages, so I fail to see how this is an issue.

smegmar wrote: »

psychological affect on children {I don't know if it will be good or bad, but it will be different.}

All parents effect their childrens upbringing. Most studies show either no difference in the children brought up in same sex unions to those brought up in heterosexual marriages, or by single parents. You cannot legislate for types of parents. I have friends who were brought up by happy straight parents, unhappy straight parents, divorced parents, single fathers, single mothers and by an extended family unit. We all turned out pretty much the same, educationally, psychologically and socially.

1ZRed

smegmar wrote: »

and here are the ways that gay marriage affects me or anyone else that is an objector.

1) precedent (incest, object sexuality, and any other weird stuff)

Tax deductions, I'm not going to repeat myself on this.

2) no possibility of future workforce

increased risk from sham marriages
{not that gay couples are more prone to it, just that it removes some criteria}

3) psychological affect on children {I don't know if it will be good or bad, but it will be different.}

You seem to be showing up your dislike and ignorance of gay people but anyway,

1) why would gay people be interested in "incest, object sexuality or any other weird stuff"? You seem to have major disillusions on gay behaviour and you're making us out to be immoral, overtly sexual and animalistic which is really denting any hope you have of making a compelling argument if you think so narrow mindedly and insultingly.

2) No possiblity of a work force. Ok let me just make a quick point right here, the future level of workers won't change if you allow gay marriage, if anything it will rise because of other sources of obtaining a child through adoption, sorogacy etc being granted. Gay people can't have children with ease as it is so how would that even effect future workers if the level of gay people without children would only rise because of easier and legalised ways of having children.

3) all I need is to point out the "different" here. That's just your whole argument and why you don't like it. It's different and you're afraid of change and the "what ifs" that arise with it.
But tell me this. Why should you, as a straight man care what I, as a gay man do?
I didn't hassle you when you got married, I wouldn't question your fathering skills or grill you on whether or not you should be allowed to have children or I wouldn't dictate what your legal rights should be between you and your wife.
I wouldn't do these things because I have nothing to gain from doing it and it doesn't effect me in the slightest so I don't. It's your life to live not mine.
But why should you care so much about my rights and tell me what I should and shouldn't be entitled to? What business is it of yours? It's not going to effect you at all because you have nothing to gain but it has the potential to put great stress and strain on my life.
So I ask you, why do you care so much about this and why do you feel you have authority over what is deemed right by your standards?

1ZRed

pontia wrote: »

to be honest ive more pressing worries in my own life to care,if you want to marry whoever just get on with it

Then why the hell are you posting on this topic then you fckin idiot?

baby and crumble

1ZRed wrote: »

Then why the hell are you posting on this topic then you fckin idiot?

Less of the aggression and personal attacks please IZRed

pontia

showing your true colours it seems,well done

baby and crumble

Pontia, if you have nothing to add to the discussion at hand, namely the topic of the OP, please don't come in here to antagonise other posters.

1ZRed

pontia wrote: »

showing your true colours it seems,well done

Yep. I seem to have a knack for pointing out false logic and stupidity. I might want to give you a few tips on that:)

foggy_lad

I am not going to comment further on this except to say that the op has shown in posts about the need for procreation and taking about the need for child bearing couples above homosexual couples who can never PRODUCE A CHILD that they are indeed in league with the jesus freaks and also the fascists. The whole thread has shown the op to be homophobic and against any form of legitimacy being placed on any homosexual partnership.

pontia

are same rules not applied to red or is there more leeway because their gay ?

foggy_lad

pontia wrote: »

showing your true colours it seems,well done

Lol 1Zred are you a redhead? Lol call me nice but dim cos I just got that now:D:D