The Conservative Case for Gay MarriageFollow

The firs hit on my google search



I bolded that sentence because it's something I just said a few posts ago.


And hey. I stumbled upon this page. It's interesting for this quote alone:




Regardless of how one comes down on the issue, clearly someone out on the interwebs other than me, not only is aware of this argument, but labels it a "common argument".


If you haven't heard it from anyone but me, it's likely that you just haven't looked any farther than watching something on TV. Do your own research though. Frankly, I find the "No one but you ever uses that argument" approach pointless, and in this case, wrong.

When on earth did I say that was my argument from the beginning? How does adding the point that conservatives have shown a remarkable ability to predict the bad consequences that will result from Liberal ideas decades before they occur change or weaken any of my other points?

How desperate you guys must be to find anything to distract from the issue at hand. I'll note that I still haven't heard a single person present a rational alternative explanation for why the state has an interest in providing benefits to couples who marry. Could we just once hold both sides of this debate to the same standards?

That you are making it up? Yes, we will continue with that argument. You have never provided any evidence to support your assertion.

But, what about all those sweet rewards for getting married??

Do they come in the mail? Should I be watching for them?

Also, wouldn't gbaji encourage more people to get married rather than rail against same sex marriage if his concern is unmarried mothers?

Also, unmarried mothers are not necessarily single parents.

Edited, Jan 21st 2010 12:01am by Annabella

Not to mention that, quite frankly, heterosexuals devalued marriage themselves years ago. It isn't until modern times that marrying for love is a norm (and even then, this isn't even true among all cultural groups in America. I know 3 first/second generation Indian couples that are in arranged marriages). And it wasn't exactly unheard of for a married women or man to have a lover on the side (especially among the upper tiers of society). And do you think married sailors and soldiers aren't the reason prostitution has been the longest-practiced profession?

Marriage is a very loose term. You need to decide for yourself what it means. That's the reason you say f*cking vows during the ceremony. There are already heterosexual couples who have such incompatible ideas of marriage. I don't understand how the gay couple across town's marriage somehow "devalues" yours. There's nothing impressive about being married. Being committed and upholding your vows is. And that has NOTHING to do with other people.

Or Nick and Jessica. Why would you film your everyday life? Surely, you want some things to be private.

I have to say, this is probably the most successful example of Gbaji changing the subject when he's run out of BS that I've ever seen.

None. And I'm going to guess it's because 1) people used to kill homosexuals, the hatred and fear was so rampant and 2) it wasn't legal.

Two reasons.

1. To procure an heir for the male, which you could be reasonably sure was your own child.

2. To form contracts between the father and husband.

It had NOTHING to do with creating a solid home environment, or preventing children from being born outside of wedlock. Men married into rich families, for their own benefit. And a woman being a virgin ensured that their sons would be truly be their own.

But this is still irrelevant. Marriage in its current state has nothing to do with either of the above. DNA testing renders the first point meaningless. And marriages no longer include dowries, and anyone with money signs a pre-nuptial agreement, so you have no right to the family's money.

Because marriage's purpose is so different in its current form that what it used to be, it is useless to point to the past and say, "Look! They didn't marry people of the same sex." They also didn't marry the person they loved. And they couldn't marry across race, in many cultures. And the woman had no say in who she married (and had no right to deny sex to her husband).

And, which I see you ignored, I DID provide an example of historical gay unions, as did someone else. Your argument holds no weight. Just because you SAY something has some purpose, doesn't mean it does. Just because you make a claim about the past, doesn't mean it is true.

[EDIT]



Even if this WAS true, so what? You don't want to create laws because it would possibly create a social change, and yet you argue to create the opposite law to bring about a different social change?

And the argument itself is stupid. That population won't increase because the gay couple down the street got married. People who aren't going to get married before kids just aren't going to. And, if the government is worried about that, a much superior tactic would be to increase their campaigns for contraception, as most children born out of wedlock are (and probably always will be) accidental. And it is brutally obvious that abstinence campaigns don't work.

Edited, Jan 21st 2010 6:01pm by idiggory

Lol. So it was about procreation.



With the creation of an heir usually a required component of the contract, right?


You're proving my point.



Yeah. And poor families went to great lengths to marry their daughters off as well. Or are you arguing that marriage didn't exist except among the wealthy?

The same social pressure existed in both cases. More personal wealth was at stake for the wealthy, but otherwise they were the same.



Only because you are looking at someone wanting to know who his child is, but failing to see the issue from the other side. Society has a vested interest in this happening, not just wealthy men who want to have an heir. DNA testing does nothing to encourage men to be responsible for the children they father, or women to be careful not to get knocked up by someone they aren't or wont marry.



I looked up both the cases mentioned. Shall I link the site discussing the fa’afafines of Samoa, and the clear statements made at multiple levels of the issue that no one has *ever* considered them to be women for purposes of marriage?



Even if this WAS true, so what? You don't want to create laws because it would possibly create a social change, and yet you argue to create the opposite law to bring about a different social change?[/quote]

Not quite. We have an existing law designed to bring about a specific social change. You're proposing changing that law in a way which reduces the effectiveness of that law at doing what it's supposed to be doing, and I'm pointing out that this is a consequence.

You're not creating a "new law". You're changing an existing one. You do see how changing the definition of "cat" to include dogs in a law which provides benefits to cat owners might just affect the rate at which people have cats (real ones, not your new legal definition), right?



That's not my argument. Population will increase just fine. But a higher percentage of that population will be born to single mothers. Get it?