In that case, everything after it can be disregarded, since I don't accept your conditional.
What "opposite sex" means is different for men and women.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More
- Thread starter Sovereign Dream
- Start date
Alceste
Vagabond
Some children really never grow up out of their old, outdated ideas, it seems.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
[youtube]ilMBLV3A6ug[/youtube]
Gay Marriage Bill Passed New Zealand & Song - YouTube
They played that clip on CBC radio when the measure passed. Never saw the video. Makes me all weepy. I think I'm gonna make that sample into something.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Me too, although I doubt my impression will be any different than those who have read your original.
Alceste
Vagabond
Hell, even I can get it down to 100 words, and I didn't even read it.
"In my opinion, marriage is a symbolic representation of the metaphysical male and female ideal, from which union springs forth new life. Since I believe my opinions are dictated by God, anyone who sees marriage differently is not just wrong, but evil. Because they are evil, it's no coincidence that they support all kinds of other things that I also consider to be evil, like equality and the right to reproductive choice for women. If we allow people who do not believe their opinions are dictated by God to set public policy, soon the whole world will succumb to evil."
One hundred words on the nose, beaches. :beach:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Wasn't able to frubal you again at the moment, but you appear to have nailed it.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
Me Myself
Back to my username
Come on, we all know this world needs more children and procreation.
No marriage that promotes being against procreation, that we so desperately need in today's world, can be good.
Specially if it gives a loving family to kids who have non, and may have never had none otherwise.
No marriage that promotes being against procreation, that we so desperately need in today's world, can be good.
Specially if it gives a loving family to kids who have non, and may have never had none otherwise.
If that's the case, then why don't you care about the children being raised in same-sex parented families? They do exist, and any change in the legality of same-sex marriage won't change that fact.
The state does recognize these relationships in certain ways. For instance, you can be your sister's sponsor for immigration purposes, and in some cases, you can get job-protected leave to care for a critically ill sibling. Both of these are rights that same-sex couples are fighting for with regard to their partners.
Alceste
Vagabond
Wasn't able to frubal you again at the moment, but you appear to have nailed it.
:drool:
That's why they pay me the big bucks.
Since I was one of those who raised 'straw-manning' I'll give some detail, although it's worth remembering that this is only MY view. Others might have made the same accusation for different reasons, I suppose.
Focusing on the 'Greetings' post, I'd mention the following;
Ignoring the fact that you consistently make your 'atheist voice' sound like a stoner by adding 'man' on the end of a lot of sentences, this is pretty clearly an attempt to build a straw man you can then successfully knock over. Unless you happen to believe this is factually accurate? That the vast majority of the internet is populated by 'intellectually-challenged-village-atheist-reprobates'?
So, my friends would wonder why I was using lol in a sentence. Or perhaps you meant online? I have a pretty good handle on science, without being a scientist. And I do tend to get thought of as a very reasonable guy. My atheism would be the LEAST reason any of my friends have for thinking I'm reasonable. Again, talking real-life rather than online. I 'know' far more atheists online than off.
The way you link the decay of society to this issue is a clear strawman. In any case, I am one of those 'intellectually-challenged-village-atheist-reprobates' I suppose, and nothing that you'd said here applies to me in the least sense.
Hope that helps clarify.
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
The song is called Pokarekare Ana, and most new zealanders will know it, or at least the first verse.
Sovereign Dream
Member
It quite clearly is the case. If marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation, and that this union's public purpose is to attach children to their mothers and fathers, then the so-called "case" for ssm is rendered false, revealed to be based on a grave misunderstanding and nothing more. It would make no more sense, in this case, for supporters of ssm to declare that we're treating homosexuals and others "unjustly" by "denying them marriage" than it would make sense for men to declare that they are being treated "unjustly" by not being allowed to join a women's debate club, or enter women's restrooms.
What leads us to see that marriage is the comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation isn't some "Supreme Council of Everything" as you suggest but rather something much more mundane: namely, reason. The state regulates marriage because it has an interest in children. Marriage produces and cultivates the development of future citizens within a family unit held together by norms of fidelity, monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence. The flourishing of children is directly connected with the public good. The state incentivizes marriage both because it recognizes child-rearing to be a difficult task and because it wants to encourage men and women to form family units. Now, obviously, supporters of ssm disagree that this is what marriage is (for if they agreed, they wouldn't be supporters of ssm in the first place!). So what do supporters of ssm think that marriage is? Here is one popular answer: Marriage is the lifelong union of two persons who love each other. Marriage functions as a way of publicly acknowledging ones love and commitment for their spouse. Because same-sex couples are capable of loving in the same way as everyone else, the law ought to make provisions for recognizing their unions as legal marriages.
Now, I dont have anything against love. Love is essential for a marriage to flourish in the way that it should, but love alone cannot be sufficient for legal recognition. For one, not every loving relationship is afforded legal recognition. There are many different kinds of valuable social relationships that are simply not relevant to the public good in the way that marriage is. Companionships, for example, involve love, but nobody is calling for the government to legally recognize friendships. Love certainly motivates a couple to enter into marriage, but it is mistaken to think that marriage is essentially about love.
Key to a particular type of relationship being subject to legal recognition is its serving a public purpose. Social institutions are afforded legal recognition in virtue of their serving some good to society-at-large, not because those involved may happen to love each other. There must be something intrinsic to a certain kind of relationship that bears on the common good for there to be a legitimate state interest in regulating it. Now what public purpose would legally recognizing a loving relationship serve? Love is an essentially private matter that involves only those people in a relationship. The state has no business poking around in this domain of life, since the state exists to regulate public goods and institutions. Some bring up the various benefits and incentives already associated with marriage as a reason to legalize same-sex relationships. According to this argument, same-sex unions should be afforded legal recognition in order to take advantage of the benefits that opposite-sex couples currently enjoy. But this is clearly question-begging. Why should anyone deserve these benefits to begin with? It cannot be because they love each other, since thats the very issue at stake.
Some libertarians have used this rationale to argue that the state should not be involved in marriage at all. If the position described in the preceding paragraphs captures what marriage amounts to, they have a point. But in fact many of us have the intuition that marriage is something special, something that the state should involve itself in. The question then becomes: Why? Whats so special about marriage that could justify this? And the only reasonable answer to that question is because marriage has to do with the union of man and a woman and their children.
Do you see how you have conceded the point I made above (and, no doubt, before)? You realize that if marriage is the comprehensive union between . . . then ssm is just nothing more than a grave misunderstanding -- a sort of 2+2 = 5. But if marriage is just is "people in loving commitments," then one could say the very things I said above (namely, that this serves no public purpose whatsoever, etc.). You're right to see that marriage exists for various purposes and that individuals may choose to marry for a multitude of private reasons, but what matters to the state is the public purpose of marriage.
Better than naturalism, I say.
If you've been paying attention you'd realize that I have presented arguments against ssm that anyone could defend, be he an atheist, or a homosexual, etc. After all, I'm not reasoning
P1. God exists.
P2. The Bible.
P3. Jesus.
C: Therefore, ssm shouldn't be accepted.
If I were to have a sort of anti-epiphany and become an atheist, my opposition to ssm wouldn't falter whatsoever. All one needs to oppose ssm is an understanding of public institutions and some common sense. Unfortunately, common sense ain't so common nowadays as can be attested to by the entire ssm moment.
Bare assertion. Never mind the fact that most people take "homophobia" to question-beggingly mean "opposition to ssm." Again, have you ever heard of virtue ethics? There's more out there than just ************** consequentialism, you know? And even then homosexual behavior and ssm fall on the very same consequential sword the seek to yield.
Just in another thread you hinted at embracing determinism.
Be as careful with your words as I was with mine: I said that the public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. Again, there are other subsidiary purposes marriage involves and even then private purposes of individuals who seek to marry. But the reason it is regulated by the state is precisely because it serves a compelling public purpose whereas writing down that "Bob currently, like, really likes Fred" is of no interest to the state.
Just as we shouldn't promote divorce (though, to be sure, the state does vis-a-vis no-fault-divorce, the state shouldn't be in the business of promoting fatherless and motherless homes in which to place children.
This tells us a great deal. Consider: you dont determine public policy based on the exception or extreme case. For example, there might be some instances when its justified to run a red light like rushing a dying person to the emergency room but that doesnt mean we should make running red lights legal. Thats bad public policy. Good public policy is one that promotes the ideal. Given mountains of empirical evidence to sustenance our already obvious common-sense intuitions on the matter, we know (indeed, again, it is quite obvious) that, all things being equal, children do best when when raised by their own mother and father. The law should enshrine that by seeking to attach children to their mothers and fathers instead of institutionally and intentionally detaching them from their mothers and fathers vis-a-vis ssm. What type of public policy is one that promote the raising of children in fatherless and motherless households? A really dumb one, I say.
Sovereign Dream
Member
Childish question. Adult answer: I don't think that we ought to allow single-parent adoption. In circumstances in which an individual in a married couple dies (either the mother or father), the child is deprived of a mother or father, yes, but this occurs without institutional intention. In the case of deliberately placing an orphan in the care of a single parent, this is done with institutional intention and so is, all things being equal, a gross injustice to the child. To be sure, I can think of situations in which an orphan may be placed in the care of a single-parent, e.g. (A) if the single parent is directly and closely related to the child (e.g. a responsible uncle, etc.) or (B) if there are no opposite-sex married couples available to adopt (which is not the case).
Yes, and this is quite obvious. This just seems like clear and deliberate obfuscation on your part. This is why, say, it's a sad moment in Batman Begins when Bruce Wayne loses his parents, or when Tarzan's parents are killed by the cheetah (or whatever it was), etc. But that's just plainly obvious, isn't it?We do?
It is a gross injustice to institutionally and intentionally deprive a child of a mother and father, yes. It is unfortunate enough when a child loses a mother or father by accidental circumstances. It is absurd and gross to rob a child of a mother or father intentionally.
Careful with the question-begging now.
The term "gay rights" is question-begging insofar as it assumes that marriage is just the fuzzy loving commitment between individuals when that is a matter of contention in the first place.
Sovereign Dream
Member
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.
Ay cabron. Who says that there is population? Furthermore, who says that we should treat marriage as a means to an end. Who says that there are more children in adoption than there are available adoptees? Furthermore, where's the evidence for any of these claims?
Finally, the "last thing we need" is not "more procreation" but rather to intentionally and institutionally deprive children of mothers and fathers.
Sovereign Dream
Member
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.
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
I agree but I think its too late at this point.
Do you think that the children in same-sex parented families don't need to be "attached" to their parents?
Sovereign Dream
Member
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
[youtube]ilMBLV3A6ug[/youtube]
Gay Marriage Bill Passed New Zealand & Song - YouTube
On a more personal note, this gives me the opportunity to say that what is most unfortunate about the ssm movement is the fact that its supporters are convinced that they are doing something so good and great and "progressive" by seeking to implementing ssm. But that is just tragically misguided as any attempt to detach children from their mothers and fathers would be.
Sovereign Dream
Member
Again, it's no surprise at all that you'd disagree with the antecedent of the conditional -- your support of ssm depends on your doing so. But, again, as I have mentioned many times previously, denying the antecedent of the conditional is utterly fraught with problems.
Well that's just a mere triviality. That's tantamount to saying "men are not women; women are not men."
Sovereign Dream
Member
That's cute but, if you have been paying attention, I haven't mentioned the Bible or "GOD!" once in my opposition to ssm. Once again, even if I had an anti-epiphany and became an atheist, my opposition to ssm wouldn't falter whatsoever because my opposition to ssm does not depend on my belief in God, or in my commitment to Catholicism, etc., etc., etc.