Illinois to become 15th state to recognize marriage equality

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

And I have not stated that allowing homosexuals to marry would make you divorce your wife, no, but it would harm marriage as a social institution, and as an institution that is the basis of the family, by incorporating people that are not a part of the said institutions. And therefore, society will suffer, and moral decay is on the rise. As optimistic mysanthrope a few replies back naively suggested, even heterosexual marriages are being slowly eroded by the moral decay of our times, and liberals, not concerned about the real family institution arising from the union of a man and a woman, are pushing for gays to have a moral upper hand, as though as they were "more deserving" than those who actually upheld the marital institution and created its traditions throughout the millenia, the traditional, heterosexual couples.

You know, it's funny how often "moral decay" = tolerance and "family values" = discrimination. It's almost as if intolerant, discriminating arseholes are using those terms as an excuse to push their bigoted opinions on everyone else

Refutation for what? You didn't make any points to refute. Slavery was a tradtion, and it was abolished, not reformed, nor turned into something else. Traditions are either carried on, or are abandoned according to circumstances.

Except, of course, that traditions do change over time. Others are abandoned. Unless you're suggesting that all traditions should be continued, regardless of their nature, the mere fact that something is traditional is insufficient to justify it's continuation. To do otherwise is to invoke special pleading. That is what you have to refute if you wish to keep using tradition as an argument.

So either do away with marriage, which I'd not advise, or give homosexuals a seperate, legal existance, that is different from that of marriage, which has other aspects beyond legality.

But if you're happy to give the same legal rights to homosexual couples as are afforded to heterosexual couples without children, why do you need to give it a different name when it's the same thing?

I gave you an answer already. The marital institution was established to encourage child bearing and child raising within a social and legal contract called marriage. Any examples, like people who are infertile or do not want children, are fringe examples. They are not affecting the overall picture, neither the purpose of marriage.

So why afford it to one "fringe group" and not another? The effects upon those couples are the same.

No it is sufficient because the said values were carried on to the modern age via traditions. So traditions are the only valid argument here. The fact that you, or someone else refuses to accept them does not change the fact that they exist, nor that they create the basis of society.
Since homosexuals, as a minority as they exist today, were never considered during the establisment of these traditions, they cannot lay claim to institutions that are bound by those traditions. By "cannot" I state that their claims are in fact, not legitimate.

Replace the word "homosexuals" with "slaves" and your argument sounds no less bigoted. I have already told you why tradition is not a valid argument, it's just special pleading. "Those traditions can be abandoned, not this one. Why? Because it's tradition!" Can't you see how ridiculous that stance is?

Society has built the institution of the family upon the institution of marriage. Family values and stability can only be provided by people who actually fit the said quota.

That's an assertion, care to back it up? Whilst your at it, explain why homosexuals couples can't have family values. If they were raised in your utopian family unit, they should certainly know what family values are, right? Explain why they can't pass on those values. Actually, before you do that, why don't you explain those values are?

You deliberately distort my words. As I said, there is an ideal of a family and an ideal of a marriage, which is why there are values that are associated with it.

I did nothing of the sort. There was a hole in your argument, I went for it. I distorted nothing.

On the other hand, lets look at a married couple with children.
A good example of a family, where there is flexibility. People can share the burden as it fits them, and can create a less problematic family that offers a child both a father, and a mother figure.
If that is not worthy of propagating, I don't know what is.

I completely agree. Now explain why a homosexual couple can't provide the same. See if you can do it without using the word "tradition", or derivation thereof.

As for adoptions, they are mostly an option for couples who are infertile. There are of course people who out of compassion, choose to adopt children while having a biological child on their own. They contribute to society in either way. One does it by adding a new member, the other is unable to do so by misfortune, and sponsors a new member that has been abandoned by his lifegivers either by a tragedy or otherwise.

It's a separate, but related issue. Why can't SSM's do the same? Surely it's better for a child to be in a safe, loving family home than an orphanage or foster system?

Well, if you mean by change that we're approaching A BRAVE NEW WORLD, I can't really understand why I'm still discussing marriage wth you.

Really? I would have thought that the coming technology would be extraordinarily pertinent to the subject. The technology is on it's way, like it or not. Same sex couples will be able to reproduce and there's not much you can do about it. That being the case, I would have thought that someone with such a high regard for family values would want to ensure that those same values are given to those children. Excluding the parents of those children from the very institutions which you claim so vital for values to take root, would strike me as being counter-productive at best.

Marriage comes with a set of responsibilities that you must fulfill.
First is fidelity, being true to your spouse, second is to provide for your spouse if you're working party in the marriage, or take care of the household if you don't work, third is to look after your children, and present them with means to look after themselves until they get old enough to do so.

All of these responsiblities are loaded on to the married parties by society and the state which sponsors the marital institution.
People who find themselves overwhelmed by these responsibilities often divorce each other. If you're not a person that can accept these responsibilities, you're probably still a child.

Wrong. Relationships come with a set of responsibilities that you should fulfil. The number of failed relationships and dysfunctional families should indicate that this doesn't always happen. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, but it is a separate issue and has bugger all to with sexuality.

It was also inseparable form smallpox until 1977. You'll have to do better than that.

So you mean to tell me that your purpose is to eradicate marriage then?

Don't be stupid. It was an example to illustrate that you can't hold something as sacred simply because it has been prevalent though out the history of civilisation. I could just as easily have used religion as an example. Or slavery, war, rape or any number of other insalubrious examples.

As I said, its duty is to minimize random sexual relations that could result in a child. Its doing its part.

No, it really isn't. If it was, then we wouldn't be facing an overpopulation crisis.

Yes a minority, dispersed across the globe. Their fraternitisations are local. However if they want to fraternatize globally, lets give them their own piece of land, where they can live and enact their own laws and establish their own institutions. Although they already have their own country, I think it was called Sweden or something.

Not a bad idea. Then we could get ourselves some sexy uniforms, reclaim the Sudetenland and......and........oh, wait. This is starting to sound a bit familiar.

Just like Marx hated marriage, just like he viewed it with scorn, just as leftists once have created communes where marriage was non-existent, and children were treated as "common property" and were taken care of in turns, where the concepts of "mother" and "father" were abolished, you want this to apply to today's society, because only in such a society will your fluffy liberal dream come true. But "gay marriage" will never be marriage. It will only be a distorted, bastardized, and twisted form of marriage that only has the legal benefits of marriage, devoid of its characteristics.
And the fact that you use things like "love" and "equality" to mask your intentions is really funny.

Trust me, I despise Marx a damn sight more than he despised marriage. I do think families are important. I do think family values are important, but we clearly don't have the same opinion on what those values actually are.