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

[Enai de a lukal]

Note that I'm using "discrimination" in a technical sense, viz. something akin to "selective." I'm not sure what instance of discrimination you're claiming is "unjustifiable" either. As I mention in the blog post, disallowing a man to become a member of a women's debate club is, in a technical sense, discriminatory, yet this discrimination has a rational basis, namely, that the club exists for the purpose of accommodating to women, not men. Likewise, if marriage just exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, then there is a rational basis to disallow, say, two men or two women to "marry," namely, that marriage exists for the purpose of attaching mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.

Well no, that doesn't follow, as posters have already pointed out (since same-sex partners can just as easily be attached to children, in principle; heterosexual copulation no longer has a monopoly on reproduction)- and its moot since the antecedent of the conditional here is false, so we can just disregard the rest.

Obviously, the supporter of same-sex "marriage" must disagree with the antecedent of the relevant conditional to be consistent and so he must hold that marriage exists for some other purpose, that most popularly being "to recognize loving commitments" or some such supposition. Yet that is enormously problematic for a number of reasons.

Sure. And they likely can make a pretty strong argument. Or one could just follow common sense that marriage serves a variety of purposes, no one any more legitimate or real than any other.

Again, your "objection" missed the point, but I'm not interested in discussing the syllogism with you.

I'm not sure what the point was, but if the soundness of your argument is not relevant to it, then its safe to say its not really a point worth worrying about.

Of course its not an argument; it isn't meant to be -- that's from the "Greetings" post which is merely there to serve as a sort of preview, not as an in-depth argument against ssm, atheism, naturalism, etc. I do being to develop a case against ssm in (surprisingly enough) the posts entitled "Building a Case . . ."

Unfortunately it is, as I noted, pretty much par for the course. If you removed all the bluster and overblown rhetoric, you'd probably have what, 500 words or so left?

I'm referring here to Aristotelian-Thomism, which I find myself committed to.

That's too bad. Finding oneself committed to Thomism is like finding oneself in bed with an ugly women, or finding oneself without any money. My sympathies.

And no, one needn't embrace Aristotelian-Thomism nor theism to be opposed to ssm.

If one abandons religious mandate, then one loses all reason to oppose ssm, or homosexuality in general. There is no secular basis to oppose SSM, that is not merely ad hoc and contrived.

Abandoning Aristotelian-Thomism, however, has resulted in the rejecting of the obvious and patently true, I contend.

The opposite of the case; there is precious little in Thomism that is true, much less obvious or patently true. Not only is Thomism an unfortunate amalgamation of outdated and unwieldy Greek philosophy and Christian orthodoxy, it is pernicious to boot. After all, Thomas' comments about heretics were not simply unfortunate "all too human" views he shared with others of his era, they were directly tied to his philosophical/theological views.

The ssm marriage movement is in the end an effort to redefine marriage and change its public purpose.

Not redefine it. But even if it was, redefining something is hardly a bad thing.

Separating procreation from marriage and sex even further will only lead to the increase of the sorts of awful social pathologies that have plagued the last 60 years or so of Western thought ever since (and, to be sure, before) the sexual revolution.

Marriage has already been separated from procreation to a certain degree, I'm guessing what you refer to here as "social pathologies" are merely attitudes and behaviors you simply disagree with (again with the exaggeration), and I doubt you have evidence correlating the two in the first place.

Moreover, implementing ssm will, instead of attaching children to their mothers and father, institutionally detach children from their mothers and fathers.

Um, ok? We're just supposed to take your word here, or what?

Changing marriage cannot fail to be of enormous consequences to the future of the social order.

Indeed. Extending equal marriage rights to homosexuals is social and moral progress.

And ssm represents nothing but a slew of terrible consequences.

Such as?

Besides my having written some 4 posts or so on the matter of apartheid, abortion, etc., you still haven't gotten the point.

I'm afraid its you missing the point. You can't take the moral high ground when you're arguing for immoral and unnecessary discrimination. Prohibiting gay rights is comparable to apartheid in any number of salient respects.

Regarding "discriminating against homosexuals," you hold to an absurd view of marriage that furthers no public interest

Um, what exactly do you think "public interest" means? Do you think homosexuals would not benefit, or are they not part of the public? And since it furthers the interest of a minority of the population, with essentially no cost to the rest of the population, and is demanded by consistency, common sense, and basic human decency, this is what we call a "no-brainer".

Once again, if marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation

Yeah, covered this- it's not.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Sovereign Dream, how exactly does allowing same-gender people to marry effect the relationship of married hetero couples to their children? How will it effect their stability at all?

That's missing the point and attempting to shift the focus to some amorphous "what if" about x consequences. If marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation, then it doesn't even make sense in the first place for a same-sex couple to "marry."

More to the point, this sort of "how will it affect you/some other married couple" rhetorical ploy is meaningless because how same-sex "marriage" might affect me or some other married couple is not to exhaust the ways in which same-sex "marriage" might affect the social order. Consider the implementation of no-fault divorce. Its supporters asked the very same thing in its favor, namely, "how will implementing no-fault divorce affect you/some other married couple/etc. personally?" And failure to be able to respond to that question, so the thinking goes, means that there are no good reasons to not implement no-fault divorce (or, nowadays, ssm). But, surprisingly enough, the implementation of no-fault divorce changed marriage for everybody. In the same way, because one cannot implement ssm without drastically changing the definition of marriage, implementing ssm will inevitably change marriage for everyone.

Moreover, we could also say two additional things. One is that implementing ssm marriage will institutionally and intentionally detach children from their mothers and fathers (e.g. surrogacy, adoption, etc.). Another is that some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation. The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sovereign Dream, you haven't presented a reason as to why including gay relationships in the definition of marriage will "inevitably change marriage for everyone". You can't compare gay marriage to no-fault divorce since no-fault made it easier for people to get divorced, so of course it had a big impact on marriage itself. But you haven't shown that gay marriage has or will have such an impact.

Children are already detached from their mothers and fathers. I don't have a dad and neither do many other children living in single-parent homes. But you're concerned about adoption and surrogancy?! You need to get your priorities in order. But your argument is still not a good reason for disallowing gays to marry because you can have strong hetero marriages that care for their children and still allow gays to marry. The two don't cancel each other out. You heteros are the ones responsible for wrecking the importance of marriage in the first place. It wasn't gays creating all those broken homes and abused spouses and children. Those in glass houses and all.

 

[Alceste]

What rules of inference commit me to that supposition? Of course, not all married couples have children; some are infertile and some choose not to have children. Nevertheless, all married couples of the opposite sex -- infertile or not -- are still capable of engaging in the kind of act which unites them comprehensively. They are still of a procreative kind even if not all members of that kind can act on its characteristic effects. In the same way that a football team remains ordered to the end of winning even if it loses all of its games, the special link toward children present in the unifying act remains even if children do not result. The state still takes an interest in these marriages because it wants to promote a view of marriage as it really is, not just as a means to an end. Infertility is a tragic defect, but calling something a defect only makes sense if it ought to be working a certain way to begin with.

Now, again, on a personal note, I think that marrying without the intention of having children is rather pointless (for reasons I've elaborated in previous responses). In fact, I may even have independent reasons for requiring married couples to attempt to have children (I don't, FYI). But the point is that I'm not in any way whatsoever committed to accepting that supposition.

Here, let's practice. If you can get this ramble down to 100 words or less, I promise to read it and address it.

 

[McBell]

...That's missing the point ...

What exactly is your point?

We get it.
You are against same sex marriage.
So do not marry a member of the same sex.

If you think any of the "reasons" you listed on your grossly over worded blog are legitimate legal reasons to ban same sex marriage, you are just flat out wrong.

So again, what exactly is the point of your same sex marriage blog entries?

 

[Me Myself]

Marriage is a pre-political institution that has existed since the dawn of time (or else society would never have continued). Marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation. But suppose that what you say is true. Even if that has not always been the case, that would be irrelevant; we are not concerned with the private purposes of why individuals in Spain in the 1600 got married -- we are concerned (I) with the public purpose of marriage and (II) what it should be, not what it might have been in such-and-such country in such-and-such era.

Oh! Well that is simple:

The oublic purpose of marriage today is :

Letting two people have legal rights that concern each other (like visitings in hospitals and such) , economical benefits, and almost universally to make a testimony of the romantic relationship they have with each other and formalizing it.

And marriage should be what people want it to be.

Given that people want it to be precisely for what they are using it, ta da!

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Well no, that doesn't follow, as posters have already pointed out (since same-sex partners can just as easily be attached to children, in principle; heterosexual copulation no longer has a monopoly on reproduction)- and its moot since the antecedent of the conditional here is false, so we can just disregard the rest.

You can't well attach a child to his mother and father by attaching him to a man and a man or a woman and a woman, right (rhetorical question, don't bother answering, especially not with sarcasm)? And, regarding artificial reproduction, that just underscores how an opposite-sex couple is ordered towards procreation whereas a same-sex couple is not (hence their needing to turn to artificial reproduction or a man-woman union). Now, you're an intelligent person. You realize that in order for one to be committed to same-sex "marriage," one must deny that marriage exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children, and also must deny that marriage is the comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation.

But then I'd simply ask what you would replace them with? The most common answers I receive is that the public purpose of marriage is just to "recognize loving commitments" (or something to the effect) and that marriage just is a "union betwen individuals" or, again, something to the effect.

Sure. And they likely can make a pretty strong argument. Or one could just follow common sense that marriage serves a variety of purposes, no one any more legitimate or real than any other.

Those being?

That's too bad. Finding oneself committed to Thomism is like finding oneself in bed with an ugly women, or finding oneself without any money. My sympathies.

With all due respect, do you even know what Thomism is, really? You know, besides what a 3 minute perusal of its Wikipedia page offers?

If one abandons religious mandate, then one loses all reason to oppose ssm, or homosexuality in general. There is no secular basis to oppose SSM, that is not merely ad hoc and contrived.

That's flatly false.

Sovereign Dream: Building A Case Against Same-Sex "Marriage," Part 0: Preliminary Remarks

"The arguments I plan to provide against same-sex 'marriage' will simply consider pragmatic facts and reasons that are accessible to any individual, be he an ardent atheist, a devout Catholic, or an unabashed homosexual. In the interest of full disclosure, I am indeed Catholic. Yet my opposition to same-sex "marriage" doesn't at all wholly depend on my Catholicism. If I were to suddenly have some sort of anti-epiphany tomorrow and become an ardent atheist, for example, my opposition to same-sex "marriage" would not falter whatsoever."

Moreover, "opposition to homosexuality," which I take to be simply the seeing of homosexual acts as immoral, is not at all a supposition that is only available to the theist. Pretty much any virtue ethics or essentialist ethical system will do and one needn't be a theist to accept either (indeed, there are many atheists who accept both). Talk about ad hoc and contrived.

The opposite of the case; there is precious little in Thomism that is true, much less obvious or patently true. Not only is Thomism an unfortunate amalgamation of outdated and unwieldy Greek philosophy and Christian orthodoxy, it is pernicious to boot. After all, Thomas' comments about heretics were not simply unfortunate "all too human" views he shared with others of his era, they were directly tied to his philosophical/theological views.

I can only help but wonder how deep your well of knowledge on Thomism is. At any rate, I assure you that it is eminently defensible, certainly more so than the sort of naturalism that commits one to the supposition that no selves exist or that morality is just a social fiction, or that there are no intentional states, etc.

Not redefine it. But even if it was, redefining something is hardly a bad thing.

Of course its an effort to redefine it. Once again, there are a few supporters of ssm who are privy to this who can see that the only way in which one can make sense of ssm is by denying that marriage exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children or that marriage is the comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation, etc., etc.

Marriage has already been separated from procreation to a certain degree, I'm guessing what you refer to here as "social pathologies" are merely attitudes and behaviors you simply disagree with (again with the exaggeration), and I doubt you have evidence correlating the two in the first place.

Have you ever heard of divorce, for example? I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks that divorce has been of great benefit to children. Moreover, 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. This is supported by multiple studies including Mary Parke, “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?” Center for Law and Social Policy, Policy Brief, May 2003, p. 1, and Kristin Anderson Moore et al., “Marriage From a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?” Child Trends Research Brief, June 2002, p. 1. Much of this research is referenced in David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996). See Yale Medical School’s Dr. Kyle Pruett, Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child (New York: Free Press, 2000), 17-34.

Um, ok? We're just supposed to take your word here, or what?

Well, I hoped you'd be able to see the obvious. In 100 percent of the cases, same-sex parenting deprives a child of a relationship with a mother or father (if not both the child's biological mother and father). We usually look at children who need to be adopted or raised by step-parents as unfortunate. By instituting ssm and along with it ss-parenting, we will be institutionally and intentionally depriving children of a mother or father, which is a gross injustice.

Indeed. Extending equal marriage rights to homosexuals is social and moral progress.

Progress towards absurdity and social pathologies, yes.

Such as?

In the interest of brevity, detaching children from their mother and father and depriving them of a relationship with a parent of each sex and all the pernicious consequences this entails. Also the encouraging of the buying of humans like commodities vis-a-vis surrogacy. Much more could be said, of course.

I'm afraid its you missing the point. You can't take the moral high ground when you're arguing for immoral and unnecessary discrimination. Prohibiting gay rights is comparable to apartheid in any number of salient respects.

"Gay rights" is a loaded and question-begging term, just like this paragraph.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Um, what exactly do you think "public interest" means? Do you think homosexuals would not benefit, or are they not part of the public? And since it furthers the interest of a minority of the population, with essentially no cost to the rest of the population, and is demanded by consistency, common sense, and basic human decency, this is what we call a "no-brainer".

Homosexuals and their supporters seek to change the institution of marriage from one that is of great public significance to one that it essentially of private significance. Most supporters of ssm argue that the purpose of marriage should be amended to the following: the purpose of marriage is to recognize individuals who are lovingly committed to one another. We could say a number of things about this. We could point out that this would lead to the recognizing of any conceivable configuration of individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another as "married" (I elaborate on this in my so-called "Argument From Consistency Contra SSM"). And we could say more about that. But, most importantly, I think, we could say that this recognizing "loving commitments" is not at all a public purpose whatsoever. Rather, this is just a private purpose which furthers no public good and so is of no interest to the state nor to the public good. That Bob has fuzzy feelings for Susan, for example, is none of the public's nor the state's business. That Stephen wants to have anal sex Robert, for example, is of no interest to the state or to the public good. Why? Because these are essentially private matters. This would simply be tantamount to having the state recognize friendships and so create a vast government registry of friendships, which is utterly pointless. This is, in fact, where the libertarian who wants to do away with the public institution of marriage is half-right; if the purpose of marriage is just to recognize loving commitments -- to simply build an enormous government registry of friendships and pointlessly bestow them with benefits of all sorts -- then we're better off simply doing away with marriage as this goal is simply pointless and is of no interest to the public good. But, of course, the opponent of same-sex "marriage" disagrees with the antecedent of that conditional, namely, that marriage does not exist to merely "recognize loving commitments" but rather that it serves a compelling public purpose -- indeed, the most compelling public purpose.

Yeah, covered this- it's not.[/quote]

Again, then what do propose it is?

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Sovereign Dream, you haven't presented a reason as to why including gay relationships in the definition of marriage will "inevitably change marriage for everyone". You can't compare gay marriage to no-fault divorce since no-fault made it easier for people to get divorced, so of course it had a big impact on marriage itself. But you haven't shown that gay marriage has or will have such an impact.

And you don't think removing the gender requirement from marriage will "have an impact?"

Children are already detached from their mothers and fathers. I don't have a dad and neither do many other children living in single-parent homes.

That's unfortunate. The law, however, shouldn't promote the unfortunate, namely, institutionally separating children from their mother and father.

But you're concerned about adoption and surrogancy?! You need to get your priorities in order. But your argument is still not a good reason for disallowing gays to marry because you can have strong hetero marriages that care for their children and still allow gays to marry. The two don't cancel each other out.

Again, implementing ssm will not only redefine marriage for the worse (and for a purpose that is not public), but will also detach children from their mother and father.

You heteros are the ones responsible for wrecking the importance of marriage in the first place. It wasn't gays creating all those broken homes and abused spouses and children. Those in glass houses and all.

I agree! Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

 

[McBell]

Homosexuals and their supporters seek to change the institution of marriage from one that is of great public significance to one that it essentially of private significance.

Before I label this a big steaming pile of bull ****, I want to give you the chance to explain how allowing same sex marriage will "change the institution of marriage from one that is of great public significance to one that it essentially of private significance."

Most supporters of ssm argue that the purpose of marriage should be amended to the following: the purpose of marriage is to recognize individuals who are lovingly committed to one another. We could say a number of things about this. We could point out that this would lead to the recognizing of any conceivable configuration of individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another as "married" (I elaborate on this in my so-called "Argument From Consistency Contra SSM"). And we could say more about that. But, most importantly, I think, we could say that this recognizing "loving commitments" is not at all a public purpose whatsoever. Rather, this is just a private purpose which furthers no public good and so is of no interest to the state nor to the public good. That Bob has fuzzy feelings for Susan, for example, is none of the public's nor the state's business. That Stephen wants to have anal sex Robert, for example, is of no interest to the state or to the public good. Why? Because these are essentially private matters. This would simply be tantamount to having the state recognize friendships and so create a vast government registry of friendships, which is utterly pointless. This is, in fact, where the libertarian who wants to do away with the public institution of marriage is half-right; if the purpose of marriage is just to recognize loving commitments -- to simply build an enormous government registry of friendships and pointlessly bestow them with benefits of all sorts -- then we're better off simply doing away with marriage as this goal is simply pointless and is of no interest to the public good. But, of course, the opponent of same-sex "marriage" disagrees with the antecedent of that conditional, namely, that marriage does not exist to merely "recognize loving commitments" but rather that it serves a compelling public purpose -- indeed, the most compelling public purpose.

That is nice long lovely rant with no discernible purpose other than to let you think you have presented some kind of outstanding point.

Problem is, here in the real world, your sad attempt to dictate to everyone what the purpose of their marriage is falls flat on its face.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Oh! Well that is simple:

The public purpose of marriage today is :

Letting two people have legal rights that concern each other (like visitings in hospitals and such) , economical benefits, and almost universally to make a testimony of the romantic relationship they have with each other and formalizing it.

Never mind the fact that you don't have to be married to obtain hospital visitation rights and so on. The question here is "why should these benefits be granted in the first place
/" and "why is it in the public's interest to recognize loving commitments"? If marriage is linked to procreation, then it becomes quite obvious why these benefits are handed out in the first place, namely, to help mothers and fathers with childbearing because the state recognizes that its continuation and maintenance are of legitimate public interest. Regarding the second question, the answer it that it is not the public nor the state's interest whether Bob really wants to sodomize John or that Susan really loves Michael. Those are just private matters which the state has no interest in as they do not further any public good. Again, this is just asking the state to build an enormous and pointless government registry of friendships. Furthermore, we might rightly ask why we should only recognize the loving commitment of just two individuals, for surely more than two individuals can be lovingly committed to one another, right? 500 individuals might be lovingly committed to one another. I might be lovingly committed to my sister. But the state doesn't recognize (well, I should say, with the pathetic state of affairs in the political milieu, shouldn't recognize) these relationships because they don't produce the next generation. There is one kind of couple that, throughout all of human history, is known to produce children: heterosexuals. Long-term, monogamous, heterosexual unions as a group and by nature produce the next generation. They create families that become the building blocks of civilization. These families are the most stable and advantageous environment for raising children. They not only stabilize society, they make society possible. That role can’t be underestimated.

And marriage should be what people want it to be.

Given that people want it to be precisely for what they are using it, ta da!

 

[McBell]

Never mind the fact that you don't have to be married to obtain hospital visitation rights and so on. The question here is "why should these benefits be granted in the first place
/" and "why is it in the public's interest to recognize loving commitments"? If marriage is linked to procreation, then it becomes quite obvious why these benefits are handed out in the first place, namely, to help mothers and fathers with childbearing because the state recognizes that its continuation and maintenance are of legitimate public interest. Regarding the second question, the answer it that it is not the public nor the state's interest whether Bob really wants to sodomize John or that Susan really loves Michael. Those are just private matters which the state has no interest in as they do not further any public good. Again, this is just asking the state to build an enormous and pointless government registry of friendships. Furthermore, we might rightly ask why we should only recognize the loving commitment of just two individuals, for surely more than two individuals can be lovingly committed to one another, right? 500 individuals might be lovingly committed to one another. I might be lovingly committed to my sister. But the state doesn't recognize (well, I should say, with the pathetic state of affairs in the political milieu, shouldn't recognize) these relationships because they don't produce the next generation. There is one kind of couple that, throughout all of human history, is known to produce children: heterosexuals. Long-term, monogamous, heterosexual unions as a group and by nature produce the next generation. They create families that become the building blocks of civilization. These families are the most stable and advantageous environment for raising children. They not only stabilize society, they make society possible. That role can’t be underestimated.

Still waiting for you to present a legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sovereign Dream, almost all the things you've mentioned have nothing to do with marriage itself. Adoption and surrogacy aren't inherently tied to marriage. Despite your fairly tale view of heterosexual marriage, it does not add up to reality. There would still be unwanted children and abuse. There will still be infertile couples making use of surrogates. Men with penises being married to women with vaginas does not automatically make them a good candidate for parenthood. Life does not fit into neat little boxes as you wish it did.

So instead of talking about marriage, shouldn't you be arguing for banning adoption, foster care and surrogacy?

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Sovereign Dream, almost all the things you've mentioned have nothing to do with marriage itself. Adoption and surrogacy aren't inherently tied to marriage.

Adoption exists to attach children to the parents they need on the unfortunate circumstances that their biological parents cannot raise them (due to death, incompetence, etc.). I'm opposed to surrogacy period, be it done by homosexuals or heterosexuals. It's just that for same-sex couples, they can either adopting a child or resort to surrogacy. And both are injustices to the child.

Despite your fairly tale view of heterosexual marriage, it does not add up to reality. There would still be unwanted children and abuse.

Of course. Who said otherwise? This isn't the "fault" of marriage; this is the fault of individuals.

There will still be infertile couples making use of surrogates.

Again, I think that surrogacy should be disallowed, period. Whether a same-sex couple or a married opposite-sex couple does it is of no matter.

Men with penises being married to women with vaginas does not automatically make them a good candidate for parenthood.

There are some terrible parents, sure. But a man-woman union is special because this union is ordered towards procreation in a manner that no other union is. And a man-woman union is precisely the type of union that is, all things being equal, the best possible environment in which to raise a child wherein he will be provided a relationship with a mother and father.

Life does not fit into neat little boxes as you wish it did.

So instead of talking about marriage, shouldn't you be arguing for banning adoption, foster care and surrogacy?

Why on Earth would I be interested in banning adoption and foster care? As I said, adoption and foster care are child-centered institutions that exist to provide children with the parents they need and this just means a married, opposite-sex couple who is capable and willing to raise children who, for whatever reason, cannot be raised by their biological parents.

 

[McBell]

round and round the mulberry bush...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You realize that in order for one to be committed to same-sex "marriage," one must deny that marriage exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children, and also must deny that marriage is the comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation.

Well, I'm not even sure that's necessarily the case, but that's hardly a problem. Or when was it that the Supreme Council of Everything dictated that marriages must be "ordered towards procreation" and that any relationship that is not so ordered cannot/should not be considered marriage? Or was this something in the Bible that I missed?

But then I'd simply ask what you would replace them with? The most common answers I receive is that the public purpose of marriage is just to "recognize loving commitments" (or something to the effect) and that marriage just is a "union betwen individuals" or, again, something to the effect.

That would work. I see no reason to prefer "attaching children to parents" and "procreation" as being priviledged functions of marriages. Marriages do alot of things, and serve alot of purposes- who is to say which one is right, or the most legitimate?

With all due respect, do you even know what Thomism is, really? You know, besides what a 3 minute perusal of its Wikipedia page offers?

Yeah, nice try. I'm fairly familiar with Thomism in particular and Christian theology in general, as the philosophy of religion is my field of expertise. The Summa was one of my favorite works during college, despite the fact that virtually all of it is mistaken. I mean seriously, Thomism? Lol. A bunch of nonsensical epistemology and Christian orthodoxy tacked onto the illegitimate lovechild of Neo-Platonism and Aristotelian metaphysics- and you want to talk (elsewhere) about views have long been dead in philosophy? You, sir, are a master of irony.

That's flatly false.

So name one.

Sovereign Dream: Building A Case Against Same-Sex "Marriage," Part 0: Preliminary Remarks

"The arguments I plan to provide against same-sex 'marriage' will simply consider pragmatic facts and reasons that are accessible to any individual, be he an ardent atheist, a devout Catholic, or an unabashed homosexual. In the interest of full disclosure, I am indeed Catholic. Yet my opposition to same-sex "marriage" doesn't at all wholly depend on my Catholicism. If I were to suddenly have some sort of anti-epiphany tomorrow and become an ardent atheist, for example, my opposition to same-sex "marriage" would not falter whatsoever."

That section contains nothing more than you talking about providing an argument against SSM, but no actual argument. Perhaps you meant to link to a different section?

Moreover, "opposition to homosexuality," which I take to be simply the seeing of homosexual acts as immoral, is not at all a supposition that is only available to the theist.

True. One could simply be a homophobe. Appeals to religious ethics are the only way for opposition to homosexuality to even make a pretense of being rational. Homophobia is not rational.

I can only help but wonder how deep your well of knowledge on Thomism is.

One could say the same of you, given that you claim to endorse it. (endorsement of Thomism is inversely proportional to familiarity with Thomism)

At any rate, I assure you that it is eminently defensible, certainly more so than the sort of naturalism that commits one to the supposition that no selves exist or that morality is just a social fiction, or that there are no intentional states, etc.

Riiiiiiiight. Mmk.

Of course its an effort to redefine it. Once again, there are a few supporters of ssm who are privy to this who can see that the only way in which one can make sense of ssm is by denying that marriage exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children or that marriage is the comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation, etc., etc.

Given that this whole bit about claiming that the primary/sole/most important function of marriage is to "attach mothers and fathers to their children" is an ad hoc stipulation to prop up your argument against SSM, its ironic that you should complain about anyone redefining marriage.

Have you ever heard of divorce, for example? I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks that divorce has been of great benefit to children.

Ok, and the correlation with SSM?

Moreover, 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.

I imagine children do best when raised by billionaire parents with private tutors and a dedicated medical staff to attend to their every need. In other words, this doesn't really tell us anything relevant.

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. This is supported by multiple studies including Mary Parke, “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?” Center for Law and Social Policy, Policy Brief, May 2003, p. 1, and Kristin Anderson Moore et al., “Marriage From a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?” Child Trends Research Brief, June 2002, p. 1. Much of this research is referenced in David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996). See Yale Medical School’s Dr. Kyle Pruett, Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child (New York: Free Press, 2000), 17-34.

So, for the sake of consistency, I imagine you will be making a thread arguing that being a single parent should be illegal as well? No?

Well, I hoped you'd be able to see the obvious. In 100 percent of the cases, same-sex parenting deprives a child of a relationship with a mother or father (if not both the child's biological mother and father). We usually look at children who need to be adopted or raised by step-parents as unfortunate.

We do?

By instituting ssm and along with it ss-parenting, we will be institutionally and intentionally depriving children of a mother or father, which is a gross injustice.

Yeah, same sex parenting can occur with or without SSM, so this is irrelevant in the first place... But a "gross injustice"? You sure do love your hyperbole, don't you?

Progress towards absurdity and social pathologies, yes.

Yes, freedom and equality are absurd social pathologies.

"Gay rights" is a loaded and question-begging term, just like this paragraph.

So, the ability to legally marry is not a question of rights? Or is the problem with the term "gay"? This is just as ludicrous as your denial that it is discrimination. It is a question of gay rights, pretty much as a matter of definition.

 

[Me Myself]

And you don't think removing the gender requirement from marriage will "have an impact?"



That's unfortunate. The law, however, shouldn't promote the unfortunate, namely, institutionally separating children from their mother and father.



Again, implementing ssm will not only redefine marriage for the worse (and for a purpose that is not public), but will also detach children from their mother and father.



I agree! Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

All of what you say is completely trnphed by the fact that monogamous homosexuals in commited romantic relationships are the most peaceful solution or aid for overpopulation.

The LAST thing we need is encourage procreation in today's world.

And hinosexuals are more prone to adopt the children that actually need it the most.

There are MORE CHILDREN THAT NEED ADOPTION than couples willing to adopt.

All this children are way better with a faimly that loves them, and God bless them all.

 

[Me Myself]

Never mind the fact that you don't have to be married to obtain hospital visitation rights and so on. The question here is "why should these benefits be granted in the first place
/" and "why is it in the public's interest to recognize loving commitments"? If marriage is linked to procreation, then it becomes quite obvious why these benefits are handed out in the first place, namely, to help mothers and fathers with childbearing because the state recognizes that its continuation and maintenance are of legitimate public interest. Regarding the second question, the answer it that it is not the public nor the state's interest whether Bob really wants to sodomize John or that Susan really loves Michael. Those are just private matters which the state has no interest in as they do not further any public good. Again, this is just asking the state to build an enormous and pointless government registry of friendships. Furthermore, we might rightly ask why we should only recognize the loving commitment of just two individuals, for surely more than two individuals can be lovingly committed to one another, right? 500 individuals might be lovingly committed to one another. I might be lovingly committed to my sister. But the state doesn't recognize (well, I should say, with the pathetic state of affairs in the political milieu, shouldn't recognize) these relationships because they don't produce the next generation. There is one kind of couple that, throughout all of human history, is known to produce children: heterosexuals. Long-term, monogamous, heterosexual unions as a group and by nature produce the next generation. They create families that become the building blocks of civilization. These families are the most stable and advantageous environment for raising children. They not only stabilize society, they make society possible. That role can’t be underestimated.

Producing children is part of the problem of today's world, bob.

We NEED MORE COUPLES THAT DONT PRODUCE CHILDREN IF WE ARE TO SURVIVE.

 

[Kerr]

That's unfortunate. The law, however, shouldn't promote the unfortunate, namely, institutionally separating children from their mother and father.

Fortunately thats not what same sex marriage would do. Two men can be in a loving relationship and they can be fathers from previous relationships. Allowing them to marry is no different then, say, allowing a divorced couple with children to remarry.

EDIT:

I suggest we split this thread in two. You wanted advice, not a debate, but since a debate is what you got then we can move it to another thread and not derail this one any further. Just an idea (trying not to derail it, but as this post shows, its hard ).

 

[methylatedghosts]

Some children really never grow up out of their old, outdated ideas, it seems. Some of them never even wake up enough to wonder why the world's gone and moved so far ahead of them...

Sometimes, though, they do catch on, and in doing so, create beautiful things

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilMBLV3A6ug