5 ms·

>Marriage is only meaningful because of the function it fulfills: provide a hospitable environment for reproduction. That's where you are wrong. It's an issue

by rms 18y ago

>Marriage is only meaningful because of the function it fulfills: provide a hospitable environment for reproduction. That's where you are wrong. It's an issue of rights, not of function. Why would it make the slightest bit of difference if anyone cares about anything? It's just a word that you want to take away from people: separate but equal. Lots of straight marriages don't exist for the purposes of reproduction. And no one reputable disputes that gay households raise children just as well (if not better, on average, because of higher incomes and older partners) than straight households. Why would you want the children of gay parents to be raised in unwed homes? At this point, it's completely and entirely an arbitrary decision, made because people like you feel like there is something special about this word marriage that gay people don't deserve. The best solution is to completely eliminate marriage at the federal level: civil unions for all. But that obviously isn't practical. That leaves us with an obvious violation of the Equal Protection Clause in wake of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia. You know you are going to lose this issue in the long run. You can't win. Conservatives never win, because change always wins in the long run. We're about 12 years of voter demographic shift or 2 US supreme court seats from winning this issue that doesn't even deserve to be an issue. Give it up; why make people that love each other wait?

yters 18y ago
First, I don't care about some word. I care about the institution, which is both supported by the government and our culture. Second, what does it matter whether I think marriage is special or anything, or who wins or loses on the issue? I expect you are right, and gay marriage will become accepted at the federal level, precisely because so many rich and influential people are behind it. Is that a good reason to throw away my argument? No. So why bring it up? My argument is that insofar as the gay marriage movement thinks marriage is special, they should reconsider what they are doing. Otherwise, why push for this particular right? What makes it a right anyways? As for the function of marriage, gay relationships are naturally non reproductive. You have to use artificial means to do this, which is restricted to the more affluent class. So, unless gay marriages are going to automatically qualify for artificial reproduction, they are inherently not going to have the same capabilities of heterosexual couples. Besides, is artificial reproduction anywhere near as successful? Plus, affluence doesn't create good kids. Look at all the rich kids committing suicide and living horrible lives. Do you have any kind of evidence to support your claim that children from gay households are equally or better mentally, emotionally, and physically formed? If you can provide counter evidence/arguments to these two points, then I'll accept the position that gay marriage should be allowed at the federal level. If not, then it is immoral to force such an unproven and unsupported position on all of America. Keep it at the state level so people can still make choices about what kind of environment they live in in America. Otherwise, I just see this as deeply un American, something of a totalitarianism of the upper middle class. Precisely why we broke off from England in the first place. Finally, yes, it may look like conservativism always loses. But, that's only at the social, cultural level. In the end, these different institutions are only so good as they are at perpetuating themselves. So, if conservativism is always losing, have you wondered why it hasn't gone away by now? It's because it is so much more sustainable than liberalism, so it is always around to "lose" to liberalism; whereas as soon as liberalism wins, it kills itself. Look at Rome. Look at Europe. Look at the USSR. China may be a counter point, but they've been tearing themselves up to get where they are, so I think it is too soon to tell.
- yters 18y ago
  Side point to define terms: by liberalism I mean the position that we should give people the freedom to do whatever they want. That kind of blind liberalism is unsustainable and helps destroy the institution it is a part of. However, there is a good sort of liberalism that aims to give people as much freedom as possible to fulfill their potential. This is the best counter to strict conservativism, since it is actually sustainable, progressive, and will produce a new culture. Blind liberalism will merely continue to wage an impotent battle against strict conservativism.
- LPTS 18y ago
  Oh Noes! The totalitarian upper middle class is making it harder for you to stick your nose into other people's bedrooms and sniff around. The totalitarian array of beauty shop owners and broadway supporting cast is going to make you have butt sex and loosen your tight sphincter. Your whole worldview is antiquated and dying, and you've probably wasted your life sacrificing opportunities to your stupid dogma. Us younger generation is patiently waiting for you conservative idiots to die off so we can get on with our lives. Most people are monkeys, and monkeys always complain when you take away their right to piss on someone lower in the social order. Bad monkey! Stop peeing on the gays. Evolve stupid monkey!
  - yters 18y ago
    How does that respond to what I said? I said nothing about outlawing homosexuality. My argument was very straightforward and you haven't taken the time to understand it. Besides, you can't tell something to evolve. You can tell someone to intelligently design something, though. Is that what you mean?
- sanj 18y ago
  Wait. So does this mean that post-menopausal women shouldn't be allowed to get married? Men with vasectomies? People not interested in having children? If procreation is its only use, then lets be consistent.
  - yters 18y ago
yters 18y ago
I just checked your point about the equal protection clause. So, explain to me how homosexual marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival in the way that heterosexual marriage is. Everyones' counter arguments here have only further supported my points. I still don't understand why people are so convinced that gay marriage is a good idea.
- ObieJazz 18y ago
  Heterosexual marriage isn't fundamental to our very existence and survival. Making babies is essential, which some heterosexual people do, and raising babies into adults is essential, which some gay people and some straight people do. Marriage isn't necessary for any of it. Treating people equally isn't fundamental to our existence either, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
  - yters 18y ago
    Heterosexual marriages are the best way we currently have of creating babies and raising them well. Once we get a better way I'll buy your argument. Anyways, that wasn't my point. rms said that law supports gay marriage. But it only support interracial marriage because interracial marriage is also heterosexual. So rms misses the point of the law.

by rms 18y ago

yters 18y ago

First, I don't care about some word. I care about the institution, which is both supported by the government and our culture. Second, what does it matter whether I think marriage is special or anything, or who wins or loses on the issue? I expect you are right, and gay marriage will become accepted at the federal level, precisely because so many rich and influential people are behind it. Is that a good reason to throw away my argument? No. So why bring it up? My argument is that insofar as the gay marriage movement thinks marriage is special, they should reconsider what they are doing. Otherwise, why push for this particular right? What makes it a right anyways? As for the function of marriage, gay relationships are naturally non reproductive. You have to use artificial means to do this, which is restricted to the more affluent class. So, unless gay marriages are going to automatically qualify for artificial reproduction, they are inherently not going to have the same capabilities of heterosexual couples. Besides, is artificial reproduction anywhere near as successful? Plus, affluence doesn't create good kids. Look at all the rich kids committing suicide and living horrible lives. Do you have any kind of evidence to support your claim that children from gay households are equally or better mentally, emotionally, and physically formed? If you can provide counter evidence/arguments to these two points, then I'll accept the position that gay marriage should be allowed at the federal level. If not, then it is immoral to force such an unproven and unsupported position on all of America. Keep it at the state level so people can still make choices about what kind of environment they live in in America. Otherwise, I just see this as deeply un American, something of a totalitarianism of the upper middle class. Precisely why we broke off from England in the first place. Finally, yes, it may look like conservativism always loses. But, that's only at the social, cultural level. In the end, these different institutions are only so good as they are at perpetuating themselves. So, if conservativism is always losing, have you wondered why it hasn't gone away by now? It's because it is so much more sustainable than liberalism, so it is always around to "lose" to liberalism; whereas as soon as liberalism wins, it kills itself. Look at Rome. Look at Europe. Look at the USSR. China may be a counter point, but they've been tearing themselves up to get where they are, so I think it is too soon to tell.

yters 18y ago
Side point to define terms: by liberalism I mean the position that we should give people the freedom to do whatever they want. That kind of blind liberalism is unsustainable and helps destroy the institution it is a part of. However, there is a good sort of liberalism that aims to give people as much freedom as possible to fulfill their potential. This is the best counter to strict conservativism, since it is actually sustainable, progressive, and will produce a new culture. Blind liberalism will merely continue to wage an impotent battle against strict conservativism.
LPTS 18y ago
Oh Noes! The totalitarian upper middle class is making it harder for you to stick your nose into other people's bedrooms and sniff around. The totalitarian array of beauty shop owners and broadway supporting cast is going to make you have butt sex and loosen your tight sphincter. Your whole worldview is antiquated and dying, and you've probably wasted your life sacrificing opportunities to your stupid dogma. Us younger generation is patiently waiting for you conservative idiots to die off so we can get on with our lives. Most people are monkeys, and monkeys always complain when you take away their right to piss on someone lower in the social order. Bad monkey! Stop peeing on the gays. Evolve stupid monkey!
- yters 18y ago
  How does that respond to what I said? I said nothing about outlawing homosexuality. My argument was very straightforward and you haven't taken the time to understand it. Besides, you can't tell something to evolve. You can tell someone to intelligently design something, though. Is that what you mean?
sanj 18y ago
Wait. So does this mean that post-menopausal women shouldn't be allowed to get married? Men with vasectomies? People not interested in having children? If procreation is its only use, then lets be consistent.
- yters 18y ago

yters 18y ago

I just checked your point about the equal protection clause. So, explain to me how homosexual marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival in the way that heterosexual marriage is. Everyones' counter arguments here have only further supported my points. I still don't understand why people are so convinced that gay marriage is a good idea.

ObieJazz 18y ago
Heterosexual marriage isn't fundamental to our very existence and survival. Making babies is essential, which some heterosexual people do, and raising babies into adults is essential, which some gay people and some straight people do. Marriage isn't necessary for any of it. Treating people equally isn't fundamental to our existence either, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
- yters 18y ago
  Heterosexual marriages are the best way we currently have of creating babies and raising them well. Once we get a better way I'll buy your argument. Anyways, that wasn't my point. rms said that law supports gay marriage. But it only support interracial marriage because interracial marriage is also heterosexual. So rms misses the point of the law.