Gay Marriage

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by lawcat

No doubt. This is a matter of prima facie evidence. If you contend that man + woman -> child = family is not a prerequisite for civilzation, than you are engaging me in irrational dicussion. We must agree that without a man and a woman creating a child, and ultimately a family, there is no civilization.

No lawcat we do not have to agree top that before we can discuss this and it dose not mean I am trying to engage you in a irrational discussion, If you have evidence to back up your claim lets see it. I doubt very seriously if you can.

[quote]

I am simply looking at it from a legal perspective. There are two avenues for legalizing gay marriage: legislative and judicial. The judicial avenue is foreclosed on history and tradition grounds, but may be open under equal protection of privacy and choice. The legislative avenue is always open based on the vote of the majority.

That is the same kind of argument that was used to prevent people of different races from marrying. There is no reason that justifies restricting same sex marriage.

[lawcat]

[quote=Moontanman;270926]

No lawcat we do not have to agree top that before we can discuss this and it dose not mean I am trying to engage you in a irrational discussion, If you have evidence to back up your claim lets see it. I doubt very seriously if you can.

Only male community can not survive. Only female community can not survive. Only a community with male-female bonds can survive. This is prima facie evidence. Nothing more is required to conclude that gay relationships are not conducive to civilization. But if that is not enough biologically, then the history informs us that this is true.

Yes, you are irrational and I do not wish to engage in irrational discussion. Gay marriage is unnatural, it is counter-civilizational, it is counter state purpose. We can institute it as a fiction to be nice to gay people, but there is nothing in the principles of order of the society that compels gay marriage.

[Moontanman]

Well at least you've shown your true colors lawcat, your argument is totally irrational and based on fear of homosexuality, very sad lawcat

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by lawcat

Only male community can not survive. Only female community can not survive. Only a community with male-female bonds can survive. This is prima facie evidence. Nothing more is required to conclude that gay relationships are not conducive to civilization.

Lawcat, you are taking a specific case and expanding it to the general. I forget the name of that logical fallicy but it is pretty apparent how illogical that is.
My wife and I have made the concious decision to not have children. We will never have children of our own. Now because of this decision, by your logic, we should not be allowed to be married? After all, if everyone decided not to have children civilization would not exist.

edit: here you go, Converse Fallicy

[Larv]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I do, however, agree that the best argument is one about equal protections in our laws and removing baseless discriminations motivated by nothing more than a desire to invocate religiously-informed (nonsecular) teachings from our society.

“Equal protection”? If homosexuals were banned from marriage in the heterosexual tradition then that would be “baseless discrimination.” The fact is they are NOT. Homosexuals do NOT want to join the heterosexual tradition; they want to overthrow it and redefine marriage in their terms. So, perhaps they are the ones who are invoking “baseless discrimination” by way of their self-serving demands.

Frankly, I don’t see how you get “baseless discrimination” when homosexuals are already allowed to get married in every single state of the US of A.

[Moontanman]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Larv

“Equal protection”? If homosexuals were banned from marriage in the heterosexual tradition then that would be “baseless discrimination.” The fact is they are NOT. Homosexuals do NOT want to join the heterosexual tradition; they want to overthrow it and redefine marriage in their terms. So, perhaps they are the ones who are invoking “baseless discrimination” by way of their self-serving demands.

Larv, please explain what you mean by homosexuals want to redefine marriage on their own terms, as far as i know they simply want the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

Frankly, I don’t see how you get “baseless discrimination” when homosexuals are already allowed to get married in every single state of the US of A.

Again can you provide information to collaborate this? I know that in my state it is not legal for people of the same sex to marry.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by lawcat

Only male community can not survive. Only female community can not survive. Only a community with male-female bonds can survive. This is prima facie evidence.

Actually, what it is, is patently false.
Homosexuality has been scientifically demonstrated to have genetic source.

If "male-male" or "female-female" communities could not survive, then it would have been completely removed from the gene pool after only a few short generations.

Your argument is basically that "homosexuals cannot reproduce," which is roughly (but not completely) true, but you completely misrepresent (strawman) the actual process of evolution. You implicitly suggest that evolution is about nothing more than the passing on of one's own genes. This shows an ignorance of the process, especially genetic drift and kin selection.

In short, your premise is false, ipso facto, so is the conclusion you have derived from it. Homosexuality is primarily genetic in origin, and has not only survived through several generations, but has prospered.


With that said, this thread is about marriage. Not reproduction. Two people are not required to prove they will (or can) reproduce before being allowed to marry, neither hetero nor homosexuals, so you are STILL arguing a point which is completely nonsequitur and nothing more than a red herring.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Larv, please explain what you mean by homosexuals want to redefine marriage on their own terms, as far as i know they simply want the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

If what you say is true, Moontanman, then why are domestic partnerships and civil unions not adequate for their needs? In Washington (state) we have the “Everything But Marriage” law, which gives same-sex civil unions the same legal rights as those granted to heterosexuals. How is that unequal or unfair?

I assume you are concerned only with the equality of legal rights.

Again can you provide information to collaborate this? I know that in my state it is not legal for people of the same sex to marry.

Do you know of any states that prohibit homosexuals from marrying in the heterosexual tradition?

[GAHD]

Originally Posted by lawcat

Individuals are accorded limted constitutional protection to marry a partner of opposite sex for two reasons, neither of which is religious. One is natural: a man and a woman can conceive a child, and conitnue the family and the society. The second is history and tradition of basic economic unit of society, which is the natural family.

I see a rather odd logic chain in this thread: Man + woman -> Marriage -> children

What does marriage have to do with having kids?

BASTARDS are directly against this logic chain.

What of a single mother who later marries another man? A single mother who later marries another woman? A father who takes custody of his child, and later marries another man?

There is no requirement for a man and woman to marry to have a child. AFAIK they only need to see each other once to produce offspring. Equating marriage and children is a non-secular argument, based on social norms and associated dogma.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Larv

If what you say is true, Moontanman, then why are domestic partnerships and civil unions not adequate for their needs? In Washington (state) we have the “Everything But Marriage” law, which gives same-sex civil unions the same legal rights as those granted to heterosexuals. How is that unequal or unfair?

A more appropriate question is, "What secular reason is there for calling the state recognized union of two people in love by another name?" What purpose does that serve, if not solely to restrict membership to a "special club," or a "privileged tree house" and to discriminate against them as "others" or as "different?"

Marriage is how we define the relationship, not the genitals the participants in said relationship are required to have.