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

[Me Myself]

So....

Has there any justification be made yet as to why should we ban the best marriages for society today (by that I mean does that do not sire offpsring) ?

 

[Kerr]

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.

The sexual union between a man and a woman who cannot have children, though, is about as procreative in nature as the sexual union between two man and two women.

 

[LuisDantas]

For reasons that I needn't mention here (it would be above everyone's pay-grade), one cannot make sense of anything without something like final causality. That's hardly an "unattractive" yardstick, eh?

That I can not say.

However, it sure is an arrogant, dogmatical and nonsensical one, which renders the whole matter irrelevant: either way, it is just not worth paying attention to.

Bye and best of luck. I have a hunch that you greatly need it.

 

[averageJOE]

So....

Has there any justification be made yet as to why should we ban the best marriages for society today (by that I mean does that do not sire offpsring) ?

His (ridiculous) argument is "The purpose of marriage is children. Allow anything else and we would have to allow one person to marry as many people as they want to, and allow people to marry children, brothers, sisters, and animals."

 

[Alceste]

His (ridiculous) argument is "The purpose of marriage is children. Allow anything else and we would have to allow one person to marry as many people as they want to, and allow people to marry children, brothers, sisters, and animals."

One man with fifty women produces more children than one man and one woman. That alone should show us our society's concept of marriage is not about producing children at all.

 

[Father Heathen]

Reason and compassion will prevail in the end as ignorance and bigotry continue to die away. The modern, civilized world belongs to the rational, educated thinker.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One man with fifty women produces more children than one man and one woman. That alone should show us our society's concept of marriage is not about producing children at all.

And since one man could potentially cause 50 women to be pregnant, this implies that human sexuality is "ordered toward polygamy."

 

[Alceste]

And since one man could potentially cause 50 women to be pregnant, this implies that human sexuality is "ordered toward polygamy."

Exactly. That's the kind of absurdity you get when all your ideas are just rationalizations of a visceral impulse.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Ok, but if you know what it means, why didn't you answer the question?

Because it is self-evident that I understand it? Hence my using the term? The union between a man and a woman is real, not imagined or constructed. But in what sense are they united? Consider the various parts of a plane -- the engines, wings, and avionics. What unites all of these parts together into a single whole is their coordination toward a common end: flight. Unity is thus achieved by mutual striving toward a single goal. Similarly, on this (conjugal) view of marriage, unity is achieved when the bodies of both spouses biologically coordinate toward a common goal. This involves more than just a mere coming together of bodies, as bodies come together all the time in surgery, contact sports, large crowds, and the performing arts. Their bodies must strive together to fulfill a common goal that neither individual can fulfill on their own. This common goal is none other than procreation, the only biological function with respect to which everyone is inherently incomplete. Marriage completes this by uniting both spouses in the context of the sexual act. This union is reflected in the creation of children who bear the marks of both their mother and father. The nature of comprehensive marital union is such that it can only be achieved by one man and one woman. The bodies of two men or two women can never be deeply united in the way which marriage demands, for within the context of a same-sex relationship, their sexual organs necessarily fail to work together for a common end. On this point, the use of artificial reproductive technology is irrelevant, since their type of relationship lacks an intrinsic link to children.

No. The other functions I mentioned were also public purposes of marriage.

And I graciously pointed out that these were simply net-positive consequences sought by the public purpose of marriage.

And, of course, you still have no grounds to substantiate your normative claim here, that this one public purpose (among several) is not only somehow more correct or right, but so much so to the exclusion of others.

I've made mountains of commentary on this. Encore: this purpose is public insofar as it continues and maintains society. The public purpose of marriage cannot be "recognizing loving commitments" because there is nothing public about the fact of matter of recognizing "loving commitments." But another comment about "well, normative or something" should probably do the trick for your upcoming response.

Alright, then tell me what it would even mean for SSM to be "false", if your normative claim is accepted.

That the proposition "the public purpose of marriage is to recognize loving commitments" is false and that the proposition "the public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers . . . " is true. Simple as that.

It isn't, as we're noted several times, so, as we've also noted several times, the consequent here is irrelevant. But let's look at it anyways, just for shts and giggles.

It is, as we've noted several times. But unlike you, I didn't simply stipulate that the public purpose of marriage is not to "recognize loving commitments"; I gave a number of reasons why that is not the case, e.g., because marriage wouldn't exist as a public institution if it merely existed to "recognize loving commitments" and because "recognizing loving commitments" is of no interest to the state or the public good, and because there is no non-arbitrary to disallow any possible configurations of individuals to "marry" if the purpose of marriage is just to "recognize loving commitments," and so on, and on, and on and on . . . . . . .

Yeah, you're ignoring the fact that, unlike a women's club, marriage is the only game in town. There is no alternative.

That's just irrelevant nonsense. Imagine that there is just one debate club in the world and that this debate club is for women, viz. it exists for the purpose of accommodating women. If that is its purpose, then even if there is only one club or 100, it would no more be "unjust" for the women's debate club to "deny" a man to become a member of the club. Ditto with marriage. If it's public purpose is attach mothers and . . . then any cries that gays are being treated "unjustly" and "in a mean way" and "as second class citizens" and that they're not being treated "equally" are just nonsensical false accusations. But I'll probably have to explain this again in the next response, willing as you are to willfully obfuscate the matter or talk about "only game in town" nonsense.

Excluding them (not only separating, but excluding entirely) from a legal process which bestows distinct benefits, as well as being considered fundamental to a free and happy life by many people, absolutely is unjust, unless "unjust" means something different to you than it does to the rest of the English speaking world. And not only is it morally reprehensible, its explicitly ruled out by our Constitution.

B-B-B-UT THE CONSTITUTION! All you need in this emotional tirade is a Nazi analogy. The relevant question, again, is why these "distinct benefits" are being endowed in the first place. If the answer to that is "to attach mothers and fathers to their children . . ." then your claim that gays are being treated "unequally" again crashes and burns. Consider driver's licenses. Without one, you cannot drive. And there's "no other game in town," as you might profoundly note. And surely having a driver's license confers a benefit (namely, having legal permission to conduce a vehicle). Would it be unfair or unjust to deny a group of blind people the ability to obtain a driver's license? Well, not at all if drivers' licenses exist FOR THE PURPOSE of providing individuals the legal permission to conduce a vehicle which they are not deemed capable of doing so in the first place. Now, if driver's licenses existed for the purpose of "making everyone feel good," then it would be unjust to disallow a blind person from getting one. Need I even draw the analogy to SSM which I've made 100 times now? Probably, given the willful obfuscation.

Unfortunately, as you're no doubt learning, repetition doesn't make a bad argument or false claim somehow transform into a good or true one.

No, you should read more carefully. Since you've claimed that the only aspect of marriage that concerns the state is procreation, then why does the state regulate other aspects of marriage that has nothing to do with children, such as taxation and inheritance?

Isn't it obvious? Taxation and inheritance clearly have something to do with children and procreation, right? I can only hope I can leave it as a rhetorical question.

Biology is not normative.

Who said it was? It's Essentialism, dear. Essentialism.

Yeah, I have a hard time thinking of anything more asinine than equality and tolerance.

Equality and tolerance are very important. That SSM will achieve "equality" and "tolerance" is precisely what is in contention, however, and I needn't point out that misguided equality and misguided tolerance are just as much a vice as any.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Well no, public policy prohibits the bad or harmful, not the non-optimal.

My false assumption alarm is going off.

If that were the case, most things we do on a daily basis would be illegal. This is simply a false dilemma.

If public policy didn't generalize, then public policy would look something like this:

"On the evening of the 24th of March at 9:37 PM, Dr. Archibald-Wellings Sr. may [or may not] fire at and fatally injure his neighbor, Steven O'Donnell, with his 9mm Smith & Wesson handgun."

or

"On the morning of the 18th of July, Ms. Emilia Everhart may run a red light on the intersection of Broadway and Imperial in order to arrive at her class on time."

Obviously absurd, right?

There clearly are, and they are less rare than you'd like to believe. There is no necessary connection between gender and quality of parenting.

But there is clearly a connection between gender and raising a child in a motherless and fatherless home. Even then, public policy must generalize.

That's not really relevant. The question is not whether such arrangements are optimal, but whether they are harmful. And they are not. In many cases they are better than the alternative (as in virtually every case where the alternative is foster care).

It is relevant. Even if it was a matter of whether something was "harmful," then one could easily rule out same-sex parenting as being "harmful" insofar as it intentionally and unavoidably deprives a child of a mother or father. Attempt to relax the term "harmful," on the other hand, would provide grounds for the placing of children in, for example, single-parent homes.

And that would clearly NOT be a case of taking anyone's parents away. We're talking about precisely what I said- cases where homosexuals are allowed to adopt, be surrogates, etc- cases that do not involve taking any child's parents away, but pretty much the exact opposite.

Homosexuals "being surrogates"? Surrogates are merely hired incubators who hand over a child after successful delivery. That's clearly not what homosexual couples want. In any case, surrogacy when used by homosexuals does "take someone's parent away," namely, the child who is birthed and then taken under the care of a same-sex household where at least one of his caregivers is not his parent. And in the case of adoption, a child has already lost his parents. Why add to his misfortune and place him in a home where he will be denied a relationship with a mother or father? Because the same-sex couple "like, really wants to"? That's obviously not a good enough reason.

You're still missing the point. Your argument relies on there being some inherent harm in same-sex couples raising children. Unfortunately, there really isn't, and in many cases, its going to be better for the child than the alternative. Thus, by advocating we have less candidates for adoptive parents (by excluding SS couples) you're effectively harming the children you claim to be concerned with, since some of them may be stuck in foster care or an orphanage because willing adoptive couples are being excluded arbitrarily.

You're still missing the point. Adoption ought to place children in the best possible home for them. This just means that children ought to be placed in the care of responsible, opposite-sex married couples who are willing to adopt where the child may be provided a mother and father. If and only if there are no opposite-sex married couples who are willing to adopt, then and only then would it be apropos to consider same-sex parent adoption. That's hardly a controversial claim and I have no idea why anyone who would want to call themselves sane would disagree with me. Oh and on the matter of "advocating we have less candidates for" orphans -- if same-sex couples really did care about the interest of the children to find adoptive parents, then they wouldn't be forcing Catholic and Christian adoption services to shut down for refusing to place children in same-sex households, effectively doing away with 99-point-something percent of the pool of potential adoptees to make way for 0.00xx of homosexual couples wanting to adopt!

Worse, none of this entails anything about SSM; if there were legitimate concerns regarding same-sex couples raising children, that would be more properly rememdied by amending adoption laws, while nevertheless allowing homosexuals the (Constitutionally, common sense, and morally guaranteed) right to marry. Your proposal is equivalent to whacking a mosquito with a sledgehammer.

Except, of course, that supporters of ssm have trying to shoehorn ssm vis-a-vis same-sex parenting. If marriage just is the comprehensive . . . then it makes no sense to ask to allow two men or two women to "marry," but this is just me playing the broken record one more.

*Also, I see the cat's sort of out of the bag regarding this "ordered towards procreation" nonsense; unfortunately, teleology doesn't help us here, because marriage was not created by any agent for a given purpose.

Who said that it is? I never did, FYI. Notice, too, how no one ever refuted that sex is ordered towards procreation. Many tried, to be sure, by simply demonstrating that they lacked the brain cells to understand the point, but showing that you missed the point doesn't show that you refuted something, right?

But even so, you still can't justify your normative leap here: i.e. going from what marriage was originally for, to what marriage must or should be for. Just because marriage originally functioned primarily for X does not entail that we are under any duty or obligation to reserve marriage for X.

Then granting these standards, neither can you coherently claim that marriage should exist to recognize loving commitments!


And on that note, I hereby banish myself, for the sake of my own mental health, from this joke of a forum where confidently expressing one's own cluelessness is the "name of the game." Seriously, I think I'll barf if I see another response to my comments that leaves me shaking my head in awe, marveling the depths of ignorance that lurk in the internet.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And on that note, I hereby banish myself, for the sake of my own mental health, from this joke of a forum where confidently expressing one's own cluelessness is the "name of the game." Seriously, I think I'll barf if I see another response to my comments that leaves me shaking my head in awe, marveling the depths of ignorance that lurk in the internet.

Oh dear... Its hard to tuck your tail and run AND stay on your high horse at the same time. Seriously, you brought a knife to a gun fight, and are, what, surprised that nobody finds your terrible arguments convincing?

 

[methylatedghosts]

And on that note, I hereby banish myself, for the sake of my own mental health, from this joke of a forum where confidently expressing one's own cluelessness is the "name of the game." Seriously, I think I'll barf if I see another response to my comments that leaves me shaking my head in awe, marveling the depths of ignorance that lurk in the internet.

Case in point...

 

[Debater Slayer]

Some people spend too much time and effort worrying about things that will never affect them. It puzzles me that someone would want to take away rights that people elsewhere dedicate their whole lives to achieve.

First-world problems, much?