Can Anyone Give a Legitimate Non-Religious Reasons Against Gay Marriage

[Zembo]

don't think Zembo thought much about anything before posting that incoherent jumble. However, lilithu reminds me that one of my children is grown and heterosexual, so where does that leave us? I'm confused now.

The point made is that propagation of the human race points out the fact that by design it is a heterosexual enterprise. That no matter how you do it – taking male sperm and donating them to lesbian couple is still a heterosexual transaction – even though it is not a heterosexual act.

Why is a pragmatic reality, that propagation is still a heterosexual transaction – anti-gay? Sorry that being pragmatic is incoherent .

 

[Autodidact]

Well, we all know that humans reproduce sexually, zembo, but the rest of your incoherent diatribe just doesn't follow from that premise. For example, do you think all celibate people are similarly parasitic, such as the Pope or Buddhist monks? It's not pragmatism that's incoherent, it's you. As I said, I really don't think you stopped and thought much before you posted. In fact, it doesn't look like you've given the whole subject very much thought.

 

[Zembo]

Autodidact:

I have thought much about this. Forums are not given to long postings – So I dove in the deep end of the pool and look like a fool. The question was about homosexual marriage – not just individual homosexuality. So the question is whether a government wants to sanction the blessing of “marriage” on those who do not contribute to the population as far as propagation. That was my premise. Your point is well taken about those who do not propagate. But they aren’t married. So I did confuse you. By the way – you already know this, just like those heterosexuals who live together, most homosexuals don’t want married -- but the minority that do – co-opt a lot of things from heterosexual marriage to make it seem that they are the same – but they are not.

 

[lilithu]

just like those heterosexuals who live together, most homosexuals don’t want married -- but the minority that do –

And you know this, how? Where is the evidence that the percentage of homosexuals who want to get married is any less than heterosexuals?

co-opt a lot of things from heterosexual marriage to make it seem that they are the same – but they are not.

The only difference I see is genitalia. To suggest that this is the cornerstone of marriage is bizarre.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact:

I have thought much about this. Forums are not given to long postings – So I dove in the deep end of the pool and look like a fool. The question was about homosexual marriage – not just individual homosexuality. So the question is whether a government wants to sanction the blessing of “marriage” on those who do not contribute to the population as far as propagation. That was my premise. Your point is well taken about those who do not propagate. But they aren’t married. So I did confuse you. By the way – you already know this, just like those heterosexuals who live together, most homosexuals don’t want married -- but the minority that do – co-opt a lot of things from heterosexual marriage to make it seem that they are the same – but they are not.

How are they different?

 

[Green Gaia]

And you know this, how? Where is the evidence that the percentage of homosexuals who want to get married is any less than heterosexuals?

And even if it is, the majority of homosexuals believe they should have the right to get married, even if they don't want to personally.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Autodidact:

I have thought much about this. Forums are not given to long postings – So I dove in the deep end of the pool and look like a fool. The question was about homosexual marriage – not just individual homosexuality.

Right - so it's not the existence of homosexual couples or families headed by parents of the same sex that are at issue; their existence is a given. And given that they exist, the question becomes how we as a society should treat them and respond to them.

So the question is whether a government wants to sanction the blessing of “marriage” on those who do not contribute to the population as far as propagation. That was my premise. Your point is well taken about those who do not propagate. But they aren’t married. So I did confuse you.

Your premise is faulty for two big reasons: first, same-sex couples do propagate. Second, there are more ways to contribute to society than just procreation anyhow.

By the way – you already know this, just like those heterosexuals who live together, most homosexuals don’t want married -- but the minority that do – co-opt a lot of things from heterosexual marriage to make it seem that they are the same – but they are not.

I disagree with your claim, but just out of curosity, what relevance would homosexual people who don't want to get married have on those homosexual people who do?

 

[Autodidact]

Your premise is faulty for two big reasons: first, same-sex couples do propagate. Second, there are more ways to contribute to society than just procreation anyhow.

And third, society does sanction non-procreative marriages right now.

 

[Zembo]

I have been trying to give a pragmatic angle on this question that seems to inflame many diverse responses.

Sexuality among consenting adults, whether heterosexual or homosexual exists in a
· pragmatic,
· moral,
· social,
· spiritual,
· emotional,
· and governmental reality.

It does not exist in a vacuum. So what one does sexually does have ramifications even when done privately.

When I’m responding with the pragmatic nature of sexuality everyone gets defensive and takes all kinds of rabbit trails because the homosexual community will never accept the pragmatic nature of their actions and preferences. The human race is a two-sex race for pragmatic purposes but they can’t accept that because of the emotional, moral, and social agendas that they want to mainstream. In this discussion we are not supposed to bring in the spiritual component so that has to be “tabled.” Personally, this discussion will never be settled without the spiritual component being dealt with.

So for the original question to be answered the way it was posted – we can only deal with it from a pragmatic or governmental reality. In 1948 the US government paid every household $600 dollars per child for married couples to have children after the World War 2, through direct tax credits. That would amount to about $12,000 per child or more now. Does anyone ever wonder why there was a baby boom?

Government is highly interested in healthy birth-rates to grow it’s population. Homosexuality would contribute infinitesimally to this rate – even though some gay couples would adopt kids that has not impact on the fertility rate. Government is impure so how it decides to deal with the gay marriage issue is already playing itself out. Obviously, it will not tackle the spiritual or moral components of this sexual debate because it is not capable of this role.

 

[Ozzie]

Well can anyone? Do any even exist?

Yep. Its politically correct not to recognise gay marriage. It has to do with the notions of "husband" and "father". Archaic I know. But these terms carry a powerful meaning in mainstream understanding of them. Overturning that status quo is a minority issue, not a rights issue. Thanks.

 

[McBell]

So for the original question to be answered the way it was posted – we can only deal with it from a pragmatic or governmental reality. In 1948 the US government paid every household $600 dollars per child for married couples to have children after the World War 2, through direct tax credits. That would amount to about $12,000 per child or more now. Does anyone ever wonder why there was a baby boom?

Are you seriously claiming that the "baby boom" is merely because people are greedy and looking for a pay off from the government?

Government is highly interested in healthy birth-rates to grow it’s population. Homosexuality would contribute infinitesimally to this rate – even though some gay couples would adopt kids that has not impact on the fertility rate. Government is impure so how it decides to deal with the gay marriage issue is already playing itself out. Obviously, it will not tackle the spiritual or moral components of this sexual debate because it is not capable of this role.

So those heterosexual couples who do not procreate are to get divorced, or perhaps their sacred union needs to be anulled for not procreating?
Legally, what is the difference between homosexual couples not having children and heterosexual couples not having children?

Or are you perhaps claiming the government is hoping for accidental pregnacies?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you seriously claiming that the "baby boom" is merely because people are greedy and looking for a pay off from the government?

Greedy and stupid, since it would take a lot more than $600 to break even on the cost of raising a child, even in the late forties.

 

[McBell]

Greedy and stupid, since it would take a lot more than $600 to break even on the cost of raising a child, even in the late forties.

Sounds to me like he is merely blowing smoke out his backside...

HOWEVER, it is entirely possible that I misunderstand his position

 

[Reverend Rick]

Sounds to me like he is merely blowing smoke out his backside...

HOWEVER, it is entirely possible that I misunderstand his position

Say it is not so. :nightcraw:

 

[McBell]

Say it is not so. :nightcraw:

Can't.
Thus the reason my whole post in reply to his is entirely composed of questions

 

[Reverend Rick]

Can't.
Thus the reason my whole post in reply to his is entirely composed of questions

I hope he answers your questions better than I have over the years.

 

[Autodidact]

I have been trying to give a pragmatic angle on this question that seems to inflame many diverse responses.

Sexuality among consenting adults, whether heterosexual or homosexual exists in a
· pragmatic,
· moral,
· social,
· spiritual,
· emotional,
· and governmental reality.

It does not exist in a vacuum. So what one does sexually does have ramifications even when done privately.

When I’m responding with the pragmatic nature of sexuality everyone gets defensive and takes all kinds of rabbit trails because the homosexual community will never accept the pragmatic nature of their actions and preferences. The human race is a two-sex race for pragmatic purposes but they can’t accept that because of the emotional, moral, and social agendas that they want to mainstream. In this discussion we are not supposed to bring in the spiritual component so that has to be “tabled.” Personally, this discussion will never be settled without the spiritual component being dealt with.

So for the original question to be answered the way it was posted – we can only deal with it from a pragmatic or governmental reality. In 1948 the US government paid every household $600 dollars per child for married couples to have children after the World War 2, through direct tax credits. That would amount to about $12,000 per child or more now. Does anyone ever wonder why there was a baby boom?

Government is highly interested in healthy birth-rates to grow it’s population. Homosexuality would contribute infinitesimally to this rate – even though some gay couples would adopt kids that has not impact on the fertility rate. Government is impure so how it decides to deal with the gay marriage issue is already playing itself out. Obviously, it will not tackle the spiritual or moral components of this sexual debate because it is not capable of this role.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that this is all correct and valid. How is it an argument against gay marriage? I mean, I don't think we do in particular want to encourage reproduction for its own sake, but assuming we do, how would prohibiting gay marriage further that goal? Is Zembo advocating that gay people live lives as fake heterosexuals, a la Ted Haggard, father of four? Is Zembo trying to argue that prohibiting gay marriage will further this questionable goal? Try to lay it out clearly and logically, Zembo, like:

1. Gay sex is not reproductive.
2. ?

 

[lilithu]

Government is highly interested in healthy birth-rates to grow it’s population.

There is a very easy solution to this... relax the immigration laws. Allow more people to immigrate to this country legally so that they can work, and settle down and have children.



(And please, no one say that immigrants take our jobs. Like yall are dying to pick tomatoes and clean toilets but there's just too much competition. :sarcastic)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(And please, no one say that immigrants take our jobs. Like yall are dying to pick tomatoes and clean toilets but there's just too much competition. :sarcastic)

Of course not! They're taking away our children's jobs. Gotta put all those kids that Zembo wants our governments to encourage to work so we can get the benefit the government is after. Little hands are perfect for scrubbing inside toilet U-bends.

Immigration doesn't give the same benefit as high birth rates, because kids don't demand benefits, you can work them through their breaks, and they'll work for peanuts.

 

[Reverend Rick]

There is a very easy solution to this... relax the immigration laws. Allow more people to immigrate to this country legally so that they can work, and settle down and have children.

Easy solution if your a Liberal Democrat. I don't see to many of these folks voting Republican.

(And please, no one say that immigrants take our jobs. Like yall are dying to pick tomatoes and clean toilets but there's just too much competition. :sarcastic)

For your information, there are many immigrants who are Doctors and businessmen.

The notion that all immigrants scrub toilets and pick tomatoes is offensive to me. I scrub toilets and pick tomatoes too.