Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

[StarryNightshade]

The whole reason I come here at all is to waste my time.

Touché.

However, in context to this particular thread, it just seems more...noticeable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is this thread really still going on? I figured it would die out around page 10.

The OP has his opinion (and blog) and, apparently, won't even listen to those who give any form of criticism (constructive or otherwise).

It just seems like everyone is waiting their time.

I'm not under any illusions that I'll get Sovereign Dream to support same-sex marriage. I'm mainly participating in this thread so that people on the fence can see my side.

At best, I might get Sovereign Dream to realize one or two of the fallacies in his arguments, but I'm not holding my breath. And even if he realizes this, I don't expect him to acknowledge it in this thread.

 

[Me Myself]

Oh he's sent is plenty of homosexuals. We need the ones who are repressing their gay inclinations to realize and embrace their true nature instead of trying to get all the other gays to repress their inclinations too.

I think we can have both more homosexuals and less repression.

I am an ambitious person for what I want with humanity, that I admit.

 

[Kerr]

Yes it is if marriage is the comprehensive union . . .

Furthermore, who says that we should be promoting individuals having children with someone and then leaving them to hook up with another man/woman? That's precisely what we don't need! If a gay man wants to have a child, then what he would be obligated to do, keeping in mind the best interest of any children he may have, is to marry a woman and commit to her for life and attempt to have a child with her wherein the child may be provided a relationship with a mother and father.

Of course its sad when people break up, I didnt say otherwise. But it happens. Gay marriage wont affect that, though. No one will get a divorce because of it. Sometimes relationships just dont work out and while tragic, its better then forcing people to live together when their love has left. That is not a constructive environment for a child.

Unfortunately, what you advice gay men who want children to do would be disasterous. Love may not be the purpose of marrige in your view. But can we at least agree that marriage without love is a hollow thing that should be avoided? Because thats what homosexuals face when they marry someone of the opposite sex. Just like it would be what you and me would face if we would marry someone of the same sex.

I agree but I think its too late at this point.

Yeah, sometimes a debate just start living its own life, lol.

 

[Me Myself]

Furthermore, who says that we should be promoting individuals having children with someone and then leaving them to hook up with another man/woman? That's precisely what we don't need! If a gay man wants to have a child, then what he would be obligated to do, keeping in mind the best interest of any children he may have, is to marry a woman and commit to her for life and attempt to have a child with her wherein the child may be provided a relationship with a mother and father.

Not at all.

Actually, any of us wanting a child would do a much more morally correct action by adopting than by having our own.

A couple of gay parents adopting a child in need for home are way better for the world than a couple of heterosexuals creating even more humans with needs than there already are.

Supporting overpopulation as a virtue is ridiculous.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Most of the time, conception cannot occur. The trick is that it's difficult or impossible to tell when conception can occur... which just speaks to my point.

Again you miss the point. I'm not making any sort of probabilistic claim here. The point, once again, is that the sexual union between a man and a woman is procreative in nature. This is true even if conception doesn't occur, just as it would still be true that a football team is ordered towards winning even if it only wins 1/100 games.

 

[LuisDantas]

Again you miss the point. I'm not making any sort of probabilistic claim here. The point, once again, is that the sexual union between a man and a woman is procreative in nature. This is true even if conception doesn't occur, just as it would still be true that a football team is ordered towards winning even if it only wins 1/100 games.

That amounts to saying that sex is procreative, except when it is not.

Even if that were particularly informative, it still does not follow that marriage should be defined mainly by considerations about reproduction.

 

[Alceste]

Again you miss the point. I'm not making any sort of probabilistic claim here. The point, once again, is that the sexual union between a man and a woman is procreative in nature. This is true even if conception doesn't occur, just as it would still be true that a football team is ordered towards winning even if it only wins 1/100 games.

If it wins zero games, is it still a football team?

I rest my case.

 

[Alceste]

That amounts to saying that sex is procreative, except when it is not.

Even if that were particularly informative, it still does not follow that marriage should be defined mainly by considerations about reproduction.

Yeah, you have to buy into all this bollox about things being "ordered" this way or that way as if there's some grand plan, which is why this whole argument has the stink of religious dogma all over it despite his protestations to the contrary.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah, you have to buy into all this bollox about things being "ordered" this way or that way as if there's some grand plan, which is why this whole argument has the stink of religious dogma all over it despite his protestations to the contrary.

It's just Catholic doctrine about sexuality.

 

[Alceste]

It's just Catholic doctrine about sexuality.

OK, but he's insisting it's nothing to do with Catholic hocus pocus, and that his argument would still stand on reason alone.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

OK, but he's insisting it's nothing to do with Catholic hocus pocus, and that his argument would still stand on reason alone.

It's the Catholic concept of natural law. Catholicism teaches that the purpose of sexual behavior in human beings is to unite a man and woman in marriage and to create new life, thereby becoming co-creators with God, as images of the Divine. So his arguments are religiously based at the source.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

What does "metaphysically comprehensive union" mean?

Do you even know?

Do you think I'd defend the position if I didn't understand it? Of course I know what it means. On the other hand, noting by the "lol but, like, conception doesn't occur every time a man and a woman have sex lol bigot" comments, it's pretty clear that everyone else is having some trouble grasping a thought I've already tried to dumb down 15 times or so.

Ok, this is getting silly. Clearly coordinating procreation, and the education and socialization of children, is one of the primary social functions of marriage. But it clearly is not the only one- this is not really up for dispute, open any work in sociology on the matter; marriage also has the personal aspect you wish to minimize (companionship and affection), as well as regulating economic consumption and stability, acting as a means of division of labor, reinforcing basic social bonds, and so on. So clearly there isn't just one function or purpose of marriage. But then, there's also the problem that you have no basis for the normative claim you're trying to make here- that the function of being "ordered towards procreation" is somehow more correct or legitimate, even to the exclusion of any others.

You're once again confusing marriage's public purpose and the private reasons why individuals marry. The public purpose of marriage, encore, is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend on for their well-being. All the other net-positive public consequences you mention are just subsidiary to this. Companionship and affection can certainly motivate one wanting to get married, but the public purpose of marriage is not companionship and affection.

No. You're making a normative claim, truth or falsity have nothing to do with it.

No, this is a mere matter of fact claim. Let the intentional point-missing continue though, by all means.

Wrong once again. Men have men's bathroom. Marriage is the only game in town. There is a perfectly reasonable basis for separating men and women into different bathrooms. There is no reasonable basis for not only separating, but excluding, gays from the institute of marriage.

"Wrong once again." If the public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, then, just like a women's debate club disallowing a man to become one of its members, it is not unjust to disallow two men or two women from "marrying." But, again, I've mentioned this about 16 times or so. And I wrote an entire blog post which, per the criticisms received, was too long and thorough. Almost as if I was trying to dumb down a simple concept to explain it to people. Care to guess why I thought that necessary? (Hint: it has to do with responses like these.)

Curious, then, that the state regulates other aspects of marriage as well? Oops, eh?

Are you asking whether I find it surprising that the state has an interest in marriage because of something to do with children? Why on Earth would that surprise me? I mean it's not like I've been saying that the public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, right? Or something about a comprehensive union and children and procreation, right? Here's a kangaroo: :kangaroo:

What a great analogy. Of course, I have conceded no such thing.

And there is more than one public purpose of marriage, as covered already.

Yes, much covered. Much already.

We aren't talking about promoting SSM, but allowing it- just as we allow divorce. Oops, eh?

GotMeSoGood.jpg

That divorce is allowed does nothing to contest the matter that the public purpose of marriage is to attach . . .

In this case, divorce simply exists for instances in which there is a legitimate reason for obtaining a divorce, e.g. infidelity, violence, etc. (Brief note: it would be more apt to see that divorce should exist to allow couples to divorce for legitimate reasons. But, in light of no-fault divorce, one can get divorced for any reason -- because it's Monday, or because your favorite color is blue, or indeed for no reason -- and the state will side 100% of the time with the party that wants the divorce. Hence the term to describe those individuals who have been "reluctantly divorced.")

Implementing no-fault divorce subtly changed the understanding of marriage from one that was ordered towards permanence to one that wasn't essentially permanent. SSM also seeks to redefine marriage by removing the gender requirement and by wholly changing its public purpose (namely, by replacing "attaching mothers and fathers to their children and to one another" to "recognizing loving commitments").

Yet by doing so one would be institutionally and intentionally depriving children of a mother or father (if not both their mother and father) by means of changing parent law to remove all gendered language, as has already been the case in Canada, California, and many other places in which SSM has been implemented. Now, for example, children's birth certificates no longer simply record a biological reality by simply recording who the child's biological mother and father are; now, birth certificates simply require a "Parent A," a "Parent B," and, as is the case in many places now, "Parent C," "Parent D," Parent E..." This is simply to attempt to defy biology by pretending it doesn't exist and, further, to intentionally deprive children of their mother and father. And these are the consequences of implementing SSM, again, as can already be perceived in places where it has been implemented.

Now, to be sure, 95% of the supporters of SSM have no idea that these will be the consequences of implementing SSM busy as they are talking about how "like, Paul and Steve really, like, love one another and they like to have anal sex with one another and you should, like, totally respect that, you homophobic fascist bigot of evil #MarriageEquality!" and donning asinine equals signs as their profile pictures.

No, it doesn't- just because a case isn't optimal doesn't mean that it is nevertheless bad (this is a false dilemma), so much so that it needs to be legally prohibited, or that it outweighs other benefits of a policy. And this is supposing we grant your premise, which we really needn't do in the first place since it requires misconstruing (or jumping the gun on, at the very least) certain studies concerning children of same sex households.

Public policy must generalize and promote the optimal precisely because of the nature of public policy! Again, you don’t determine public policy based on the exception or extreme case. For example, there might be some instances when it’s justified to run a red light -- like rushing a dying person to the emergency room -- but that doesn’t mean we should make running red lights legal. That’s bad public policy. Similarly, there might be some very rare circumstances in which a child might "better off" with a same-sex couple or with a single parent, but that doesn't thereby mean that it ought to be public policy to place children in the care of same-sex couples or single parents.

It would appear you're not very familiar with the realities of foster care, if you think that remaining in foster care would, in general, be better than being raised by a single parent.

Yes, do tell me more of this red herring you had for breakfast.

I'm not sure cases like that make up a majority; many times a child is placed elsewhere is because the family situation is unstable, and so while they may be unable to appreciate it, being raised in foster care or with a relative, or by one parent, is actually in their best interest.

Not sure what you're responding to exactly but what you said sounds right. Then again, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, so don't hold my tongue to that.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Yeah, that's not what we're talking about. Legalizing gay marriage would not institutionally deprive children of a mother and a father. It's not like its going to make anyone's parents *poof*, go away.

That's actually precisely what is happening. Male homosexual couples, for example, pay surrogates to take to term some of their sperm and some of the eggs they bought from a genetically-endowed woman. After nine months, the surrogate hands over a child, receives a wad of cash and is then escorted off the premises, allowing the homosexual couple to pretend to be the happy heterosexual couple who just "gave birth" to their child, and then they take the child home and avoid any talk of the big elephant in the room, namely, "where's mommy?" To which the answer is: "well, we bought some woman's eggs. Not just any woman, mind you -- she had a high IQ and had desirable genetic traits. Then, we found your second mommy, Narida, in Hyderabad, India and then we paid her to take you to term. Then she gave birth to you, we bought you like a commodity, as one might buy an exotic pet, and we are deliberately raising you without a mother because my homosexual partner and I just 'like, really wanted to, like, have a kid in the house, lol' and then we contractually obligated Narida and your other mommy to give you up." Just wonderful, right? In the case of a lesbian couple, they either buy some sperm from a sperm bank or sleep with some guy friend and then *poof*, they escort him off the premises and take "their child" away with them to their house where they must live out their own fatherless fantasy and avoid their own elephant in the room, namely, "where's daddy?" The answer, in most cases, is "Well, we bought his sperm, delibrately deprived you of a father because my lesbian partner and I 'like, really wanted a kid to parade around on a stroller, lol so cute' and then we contractually obligated him to leave my lesbian partner and I alone." Another wonderful story, right?

The only extent to which it would do anything of the sort is by, for instance, allowing gay couples to adopt- in which case, even if same sex households are not optimal (for whatever reason), they are nevertheless going to often be better for the child than the care they would have been receiving otherwise (I mean honestly, are you aware of the conditions of some orphanages around the world?).

You're thinking about this the wrong way. I could construct two scenarios in a different way. What if the lesbians didn’t have a stable relationship, couldn’t keep steady jobs, experienced domestic violence in their home, and often used drugs. The other adoptive option was a married heterosexual couple (one a doctor and the other a teacher), who lived in the same home for 18 years, and who had already adopted a child. Given those two options, wouldn’t it be better for the child to be adopted by the heterosexual couple? Sure, but what’s that prove? That you can construct any combination of scenarios designed to prove that a certain set of people would be better parents.

The question that needs to be asked is whether a child who needs to be adopted is best served by a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple -- all things being equal. The question focuses on the needs of the child, not the wants of homosexuals who are politically motivated to normalize same-sex marriage and parenting. The answer is straightforward: decades of published research in psychology, social science, and medicine demonstrate that children do best when raised by a mother and father (especially the biological parents) in a long-term marriage. That’s because a mother and a father each provide a unique and important contribution to their role as parents. Children who are raised – for example – in fatherless families suffer, on average, in every measure of well-being. They have higher levels of physical and mental illness, educational difficulties, poverty, substance abuse, criminal behavior, loneliness, and physical and sexual abuse.

No, it doesn't. It assumes that it is a question of rights, and that it pertains to gays. That's a check on both counts, obviously.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Is a half legible book still a book?

I rest my case.

The fact that you referred to it as a "book" is telling, isn't it?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Sex, when done correctly, always releases endorphins, which help elevate headaches and increase your general mood.
Sex, when done correctly, only sometimes causes pregnancy...

Therefore, how can you say that sex is ordered towards procreation.. It seems to me sex is ordered towards helping aches and pains, and pregnancy is only a potential byproduct.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

The concept of marriage only for procreation is not only outdated, but is straightforward stupid in today's overflowing population.

Homosexual marriage and adoption is one of the best things to happen actually.

Furthermore, having a highh increase in hmosexual marriage and adoption would be incredibly good for humanity and thousands of children.

In summary, a real big blessing.

We need God to send us more hmosexuals or we ll reproduce ourselves to our extintion!

Again, where's the evidence that there's overpopulation? And what makes you think that righting a wrong with another wrong (viz. detaching children from their mother and father) will be of any help?

Perhaps you won't even bother to respond like last time and you'll just repeat yourself. Hey, it's a free country and all that. Just don't expect me to care about the repetitive ramblings of an ignoramus.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

That amounts to saying that sex is procreative, except when it is not.

Even if that were particularly informative, it still does not follow that marriage should be defined mainly by considerations about reproduction.

Say that you were to gather 99 blind people in a room. Then, you place 1 person who can see in the room as well. Would we then conclude, as many on this thread are, that eyes are not ordered towards seeing? Of course not! Ditto with sexual intercourse!

It really isn't hard to grasp, folks. I've tried to dumb everything down enough as it is. Are you guys seriously this obstinate?

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Sex, when done correctly, always releases endorphins, which help elevate headaches and increase your general mood.
Sex, when done correctly, only sometimes causes pregnancy...

Therefore, how can you say that sex is ordered towards procreation[?]

You're not understanding what I mean by "ordered towards." To say that something is "ordered towards" something is just to say that it is such that it is directed towards a final cause of some sort. So an eye, for example, is clearly ordered towards sight. A mouth is clearly ordered towards masticating (or speaking, etc.). A football team is ordered towards winning. A penis is clearly ordered towards ejaculation into a vagina. And so on. Now, suppose that, for whatever reason, an eye cannot fulfill its final cause qua eye (viz. seeing). Would we say that the eye is then not ordered towards sight? Of course not. We'd say that the eye is ordered towards sight, alright, but, because of some accidental reason, it cannot fulfill its final end. Similarly, I am NOT saying that sexual intercourse is procreative in nature or that it is ordered towards procreation if an only if it fulfills its natural end, viz. conception. I am merely saying that sexual intercourse is procreative in nature and it is ordered towards procreation precisely because it is directed towards doing so, even if, for whatever reason, it doesn't result in pregnancy. The very fact that one need resort to contraception to prevent pregnancies is just obvious vindication of this obviousity!

Now, based on this confused response, you must think that I mean that sexual intercourse is "ordered towards procreation" on the basis of some inferential "x percent of time, sex results in procreation" yet, as I said above, that is not at all what I am saying.

It seems to me sex is ordered towards helping aches and pains, and pregnancy is only a potential byproduct.

That's to get your teleology all upside down. Sex feels good, yes, but this is simply what motivates sex, not what sex is inherently ordered towards. Consider eating: surely, some foods are delicious and they cause us to feel good when we eat them. But it would be confused to say that we eat in order to please our taste buds. That's another example of getting teleology all upside down. Rather, the pleasure we get from eating motivates our eating, not the other way around.

But again, this is all just painfully obvious. No doubt I'll get 15 responses to this that are just laughably point-missing. And even more calling me "bigot" before launching into some irrelevant emotional tirade.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Yeah, you have to buy into all this bollox about things being "ordered" this way or that way as if there's some grand plan, which is why this whole argument has the stink of religious dogma all over it despite his protestations to the contrary.

All that advice you offered in the beginning of this thread is depreciating in value at an exponential rate with every laughable response and comment you make.