Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Conservative Case for Gay MarriageFollow

#227 Jan 19 2010 at 11:03 AM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Quote:
EQ/EQ2 gnome - about the same size as a WoW gnome but with a proportionate head.


Where's the fun in that?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#228gbaji, Posted: Jan 19 2010 at 6:30 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Lol. What will satisfy you? I could list off historical document and papers showing a clear relationship between marriage and procreation. As I pointed out earlier, it's almost impossible to find a reference to marriage historically that *doesn't* mention procreation. I've quoted from a philosopher stating quite clearly that procreation and child rearing are the two major and "necessary" functions of marriage. I've also provided a thought experiment which should allow any rational person to realize just how clear the relationship between procreation and the institution of marriage is.
#229 Jan 19 2010 at 6:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Nadenu Delivers on Time wrote:
Gbaji's argument used to be that marriage *should* produce children. I keep forgetting that he's changed his stance somewhat.


I have never held this position, nor argued it. Many people have countered that if marriage is about procreation, then why do we allow people who don't have children to marry. To which I have responded with an argument ranging from "we can't determine which will or wont with certainty unless the couple is same sex", to "Ok. Even accepting that position, then it still excludes same sex marriages".


I have always argued the same exact point on this: That the state's interest with regard marriage is to encourage heterosexual couples to enter into it as frequently and as early as possible so as to minimize the number of unwed mothers and the resulting negative socio-economic effects this has on their children and the society which will inevitably have to support them.


My argument is not about what marriage means to those who enter it. It is not about prohibiting marriages from anyone who wants it (even gay couples and polygamists). My argument is that the state status (which is what all the legal fighting is really about) only qualifies couples for a set of state mandated benefits. Everything else we associate with marriage can be obtained via contracts meaning we are left with asking why the state rewards people for marrying. Based on my position in the paragraph above, I conclude that it is perfectly correct for the states to have qualifying criteria for that status which excludes all couples not consisting of one man and one woman.


That has always been my position on this issue. It has not changed...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#230 Jan 19 2010 at 6:55 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
gbaji wrote:
The state loses a lot of you impregnate a woman and then walk away because you never entered into any sort of formalized relationship with her. Get it?


No,the state will come after your sorry *** and make you pay child support even if you were never married. I know this from experience.
#231 Jan 19 2010 at 7:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Just so you don't claim I'm ignoring this point:

Jophiel wrote:
Yes, I've done so many times before. I've offered to have us both dissect things such as the pension reforms of the 1970's or the woman's inheritance acts of the 1800's and see what exactly the principles in question were demanding and why. You weren't very interested.


It wasn't that I wasn't very interested, but that neither of these issues debate the importance of marriage to the state. They start with the assumption that marriage is important and move from there.


But hey. If you can find some documentation of either of those in which there some clear discussion of *why* the state should reward people who marry, I'll gladly take interest. The last time you brought this up, you failed to do so.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#232 Jan 19 2010 at 7:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Nadenu Delivers on Time wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The state loses a lot of you impregnate a woman and then walk away because you never entered into any sort of formalized relationship with her. Get it?


No,the state will come after your sorry *** and make you pay child support even if you were never married. I know this from experience.


Something the state would not have to do if you'd been married, right?

How do you not get that the state would prefer that you were married prior to having the child so it wouldn't have to do this? Is that so hard to understand? If every heterosexual couple was married prior to having children, the state would never have to spend resources tracking down who the father of a child is and forcing him to pay child support. That would all be handled in civil court in the event of a divorce instead, with the costs born by the couple seeking the divorce.


Think through the issue. It keeps coming back to the same thing, doesn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#233 Jan 19 2010 at 7:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It wasn't that I wasn't very interested, but that neither of these issues debate the importance of marriage to the state.

They directly debate why those benefits exist. You know, the benefits that you so desperately need us all to believe exist as an incentive to get married? Well, examining them will show us why they exist.

Quote:
clear discussion of *why* the state should reward people who marry

Any time you want to stop pretending, without absolutely zero evidence, that the benefits exist as "rewards" you go right ahead and do so. Because, for someone who refuses to examine why these benefits exist, you're really, really eager to just insist that they're "rewards" for getting married.

Wonder why that is... wait, no I don't. It's because you know you can't show that they're "rewards" but you hope if you just insist over and over again that it's true, we can skip all that sticky stuff about why the benefits exist and jump right into a debate about why we need to reward people (ignoring the fact that there are no "rewards" as such).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#234 Jan 19 2010 at 7:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nadenu Delivers on Time wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The state loses a lot of you impregnate a woman and then walk away because you never entered into any sort of formalized relationship with her. Get it?


No,the state will come after your sorry *** and make you pay child support even if you were never married. I know this from experience.


Something the state would not have to do if you'd been married, right?

How do you not get that the state would prefer that you were married prior to having the child so it wouldn't have to do this? Is that so hard to understand? If every heterosexual couple was married prior to having children, the state would never have to spend resources tracking down who the father of a child is and forcing him to pay child support. That would all be handled in civil court in the event of a divorce instead, with the costs born by the couple seeking the divorce.


Think through the issue. It keeps coming back to the same thing, doesn't it?


No, the state is still involved. You have to get a divorce, which still involves the courts. A divorced man can still walk away from his duties if the state does not specify what they are.
#235 Jan 19 2010 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If every heterosexual couple was married prior to having children, the state would never have to spend resources tracking down who the father of a child is and forcing him to pay child support. That would all be handled in civil court in the event of a divorce instead, with the costs born by the couple seeking the divorce.

This was a joke right? If you divorce, custody and support enforcement is handled through the exact same state agency that handles non-marital custody cases.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#236 Jan 19 2010 at 7:50 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If every heterosexual couple was married prior to having children, the state would never have to spend resources tracking down who the father of a child is and forcing him to pay child support. That would all be handled in civil court in the event of a divorce instead, with the costs born by the couple seeking the divorce.

This was a joke right? If you divorce, custody and support enforcement is handled through the exact same state agency that handles non-marital custody cases.
Excuse me, but that wasn't your thought experiment, mister
#237 Jan 19 2010 at 8:55 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Gbaji, I've asserted that most of the legal framework around marriage is there to deal with people who are married. It is not there to encourage people to get married, but rather as a reaction to the need for a different set of rules for people who are in these permanent dependent relationships. This is why it's important to examine stuff like pension reform and womens rights. They are examples of relationships and societal norms changing and necessitating the development of new rules to deal with them.

I have also, in an attempt to engage you, as you seem tied to the idea that marriage structures are an incentive, have tried to demonstrate why these relationships are worthwhile and valid for both homosexual relationships and hetero ones, but as you just dismiss this, I've mostly given up on this route.

In the end, most of the rules and laws, if not all of them exists as reactive rather then proactive measures. Philosophers pontificating on the value of marriage has little to nothing to do with how the legal stuff around marriage came to be.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#238gbaji, Posted: Jan 19 2010 at 9:24 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You position would hold a hell of a lot more weight if you'd actually present something to support it other than "I think it should be this way" and "I don't agree it's the way you say it is". Where is your evidence? If logical argument doesn't matter and historical discourse on the subject doesn't matter, then what does?
#239 Jan 19 2010 at 9:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If every heterosexual couple was married prior to having children, the state would never have to spend resources tracking down who the father of a child is and forcing him to pay child support. That would all be handled in civil court in the event of a divorce instead, with the costs born by the couple seeking the divorce.

This was a joke right? If you divorce, custody and support enforcement is handled through the exact same state agency that handles non-marital custody cases.


Yes. Except the facts of paternity are already established, aren't they? And you have to pay to get divorced, which covers the costs of the courts time making up the settlement agreements (or the lawyers do it without a court being involved). And there's no need for the state to potentially take up the care of the child while paternity is being sorted out. And there's no issue with the mother just not bothering to name the father either, is there?


The key question, "Who's child is this?" Is answered before any state agency has to get involved Joph. That's the point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#240 Jan 19 2010 at 9:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yes. Except the facts of paternity are already established, aren't they?

They typically are anyway.

Quote:
And you have to pay to get divorced, which covers the costs of the courts time making up the settlement agreements (or the lawyers do it without a court being involved).

You also have to pay to seek child support in court. Or the parties do it without the court being involved.

Quote:
The key question, "Who's child is this?" Is answered before any state agency has to get involved Joph. That's the point.

That's the point? "Whose child is this?" is usually a fairly minor point in support cases. It's the whole "Get the other party to actually pay up" that causes the issues.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#241Buffylvr, Posted: Jan 19 2010 at 10:00 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm surprised no one has brought up the religious aspect of this topic. I think you will find that those to hold to a historically conservative religious view (In my case it would be Christian) of Judaism, Islam, Christianity all believe that homosexuality is wrong. As a result, the topic of gay marriage would be offensive/objectionable to them because of this religious culture.
#242 Jan 19 2010 at 10:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And most of the legal framework around speeding is there to deal with people who are speeding. Oddly, very little of it details *why* speeding is bad...

Want to try again?

And yet, whenever someone tries to change the laws regarding speeding, a whole lot of people speak at length about why they think the law should be changed. Just like, when people were changing the various benefits gained via marriage, they spoke about why it was important.

Want to try again?

Of course you don't. Because that would break down your sad bit of sophistry where you just insist over and over that the benefits are "rewards" so you can jump ahead in the argument and not have to worry about the part where you actually show evidence that the benefits are "rewards".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#243 Jan 19 2010 at 10:10 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
Buffylvr wrote:
I think marriage is a religious term, not a social one.
I'm an atheist, and I can still get married.
#244Buffylvr, Posted: Jan 19 2010 at 10:17 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes, absolutely. I'm arguing that we should disconnect the two aspects of marriage/religious responsibility and marriage/civil responsibility.
#245 Jan 19 2010 at 10:21 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
Buffylvr wrote:
I'm surprised no one has brought up the religious aspect of this topic.

Because even gbaji isn't retarded enough to use religion as a premise for a legal argument.




Quote:
To the comment several pages back that America is a Christian nation - this is no longer correct. If it was at one point, there are now so many Christian denominations in the United States that they don't agree on most major social topics any longer, and can't be viewed through one lens. In addition, although Christian make up the largest block of Americans, they no longer make up a majority. Those who identify themselves as 'born-again' Christians (again, that's me) represent only 18% of Americans - (Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm ) - these are the Christians likely to have the most restricted view of what marriage is and how homosexuality should be dealt with in our culture.

The United States was never a christian nation.


#246 Jan 19 2010 at 10:23 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Buffylvr wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Buffylvr wrote:
I think marriage is a religious term, not a social one.
I'm an atheist, and I can still get married.


Yes, absolutely. I'm arguing that we should disconnect the two aspects of marriage/religious responsibility and marriage/civil responsibility.

The term marriage (to me) implies a covenant made to each other before God. I've never been married, but I'm fairly certain that this is the general idea.

For those like you, who are atheist, but wish to have a ceremony, great - have a civil ceremony of some sort. This ceremony is certified by the state and includes all the rights and responsibilities that a civil union entails.

Make 'marriage' a religious term, which is a union that meets the religious expectations of the participants.

I'd be more than happy if we could somehow convince people to rebrand the court's definition of marriage as a "civil union" for everyone and then leave marriage to the churches, but that isn't going to happen.

You'd be surprised how someone can go from saying "civil unions are fine!" to "no, civil union is unfair to me" when they suddenly become included.
#247 Jan 19 2010 at 10:25 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Buffylvr wrote:
I'm surprised no one has brought up the religious aspect of this topic.
Because it's worthless. We already have though, and the problem with the religious aspect is that it doesn't belong in the lawmaking process.

Bardalicious wrote:
Buffylvr wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Buffylvr wrote:
I think marriage is a religious term, not a social one.
I'm an atheist, and I can still get married.


Yes, absolutely. I'm arguing that we should disconnect the two aspects of marriage/religious responsibility and marriage/civil responsibility.

The term marriage (to me) implies a covenant made to each other before God. I've never been married, but I'm fairly certain that this is the general idea.

For those like you, who are atheist, but wish to have a ceremony, great - have a civil ceremony of some sort. This ceremony is certified by the state and includes all the rights and responsibilities that a civil union entails.

Make 'marriage' a religious term, which is a union that meets the religious expectations of the participants.

I'd be more than happy if we could somehow convince people to rebrand the court's definition of marriage as a "civil union" for everyone and then leave marriage to the churches, but that isn't going to happen.

You'd be surprised how someone can go from saying "civil unions are fine!" to "no, civil union is unfair to me" when they suddenly become included.
Separate but equal fails again. It doesn't even sound nice.

"Oh we're getting civil union'd on Saturday." What the fuck?

Edited, Jan 19th 2010 10:36pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#248 Jan 19 2010 at 10:26 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
Buffylvr wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Buffylvr wrote:
I think marriage is a religious term, not a social one.
I'm an atheist, and I can still get married.


Yes, absolutely. I'm arguing that we should disconnect the two aspects of marriage/religious responsibility and marriage/civil responsibility.

The term marriage (to me) implies a covenant made to each other before God. I've never been married, but I'm fairly certain that this is the general idea.

Marriage predates your idea of God.

Quote:

For those like you, who are atheist, but wish to have a ceremony, great - have a civil ceremony of some sort. This ceremony is certified by the state and includes all the rights and responsibilities that a civil union entails.

Make 'marriage' a religious term, which is a union that meets the religious expectations of the participants.
Why should religions be the sole claimants of the word "marriage?"
#249 Jan 19 2010 at 11:18 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Gbaji, I've asserted that most of the legal framework around marriage is there to deal with people who are married.


And most of the legal framework around speeding is there to deal with people who are speeding. Oddly, very little of it details *why* speeding is bad...

Want to try again?
Wow, you missed the point by so much, I'm going to have to assume it's purposeful. Married couples need a different set of rules, because they form a unique situation. The situation is unique without having to include children. This is in response to your thought experiment remember? Children can be part of this unique situation, but they are not essential to it, nor are they unique. Due to this we make separate laws and rules regarding children, because they are recognized as a separate legal issue.

Gbaji wrote:
Quote:
This is why it's important to examine stuff like pension reform and womens rights. They are examples of relationships and societal norms changing and necessitating the development of new rules to deal with them.


Great. Examine away. Provide a cite saying that those things related to marriage specifically based on an assumption that marriage did not have anything at all to do with procreation. Instead of insisting that since I don't address these issues, I must be wrong, why don't you actually go through the trouble of showing how these side topics show that you are right.

As I've already stated. I've provided historical evidence. I've provided logical analysis. You've provided... Nothing.
The times when we've started to go down these roads you've immediately dismissed them as irrelevant. I mean, hell your previous post did. I'm not going to go do a bunch of research when you're not willing to engage. Philosophy is not historical evidence by the way. We can go over how gender rights made sure that the women would get paid out pension, and how women starting to work affected the tax law as prior a family would normally just have one significant income. I would assert that most of our legal structure evolved to deal with the fact that the couple shares their property.

Gbaji wrote:
Quote:
I have also, in an attempt to engage you, as you seem tied to the idea that marriage structures are an incentive, have tried to demonstrate why these relationships are worthwhile and valid for both homosexual relationships and hetero ones, but as you just dismiss this, I've mostly given up on this route.


I have not "dismissed this". I've responded at length to this suggestion. I presented a whole set of arguments about how the relative value gained by society by encouraging gay couples to enter into marriage relationships isn't as great as that gained by encouraging straight couples to do so.
Blatantly Blatantly false. You have. You have asserted that gay marriage provides zero benefit to society. That is a direct quote. Zero.


Gbaji wrote:
Quote:
In the end, most of the rules and laws, if not all of them exists as reactive rather then proactive measures. Philosophers pontificating on the value of marriage has little to nothing to do with how the legal stuff around marriage came to be.


You position would hold a hell of a lot more weight if you'd actually present something to support it other than "I think it should be this way" and "I don't agree it's the way you say it is". Where is your evidence? If logical argument doesn't matter and historical discourse on the subject doesn't matter, then what does.
What have you given? You've given an argument, so have we, and in both cases it's more then simply saying this is the way, although yours hinges on the idea that all of the stuff surrouding marriage is there to encourage people to enter into marriage, and your only defense of that has been to jump up and down and insist it's true. We've referred to actual changes in marriage law, and you've referred to a philosopher.

I'll freely admit that a marriage is a great place to raise a child because it is a stable place. However unless you have some kind of religious reason, a homosexual marriage is also a great place to raise a child, for the same reasons. Given the fact that these days with the ease of contraception and the fact that most children are chosen, your statistical argument about only hetero marriages having a benefit here really doesn't hold water. It's also irrelevant.

Edited, Jan 19th 2010 11:33pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#250 Jan 20 2010 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
All of this arguing with gbaji is moot, anyway. Hell, let's say he's right, that marriage is "all about the children." That still isn't a reason to exclude homsexuals. Kids can be adopted. Kids can be born through a surrogate, or a woman in a homosexual relationship can be artificially inseminated.

I get that gbaji, for some odd reason, thinks that only "natural children" matter, but that's preposterous. So marriage can be for kids, and still make sense to allow homosexuals to marry.
#251 Jan 20 2010 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
**
715 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
All of this arguing with gbaji is moot, anyway. Hell, let's say he's right, that marriage is "all about the children." That still isn't a reason to exclude homsexuals. Kids can be adopted. Kids can be born through a surrogate, or a woman in a homosexual relationship can be artificially inseminated.

I get that gbaji, for some odd reason, thinks that only "natural children" matter, but that's preposterous. So marriage can be for kids, and still make sense to allow homosexuals to marry.


Yeah, people keeping going 'round and 'round with him about details when they don't agree on the basis of his argument. But, then I realize how boring the forum would be without gbaji and varus, and just shrug.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 190 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (190)