(November 15, 2013 at 3:26 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Yeah, from a few fringe examples, and I'd say that it was even uncommon and looked down upon in societies where homosexuality was rather "acceptable", or outright non-existent.
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Go to any place on earth, ask any of the 72 nations of the world, and every tribe on every island across the seven seas, and they will attest to this fact.

I'm not claiming that the number is huge, but the precedent is there. Even if there weren't any examples, the fact that 'it's always been that way' just isn't good enough. I gave examples of other traditions, do you support the continuation of those? Slavery has been present in almost all of history, should we allow it because 'it's always been that way'? I'd like to think we can move beyond the archaic discrimination in our past

Quote:Infertile people are not infertile because they want it so. They are so because some misfortune has befallen them. Most of them usually discover their infertility after they get married and think about having children.

But there are people who choose to be infertile. There are also those who discover they're infertile before they marry.

Quote:However, these do not go against the fact that marriage is connected to the institution of family, hence the terms used for children born within and outside of the wedlock, marriage does matter, and its primary purpose is to provide the next generation with the family and family values it always espoused.

But if 2 people can constitute a family, what does it matter if they're the same gender?

What makes you think that a homosexual couple can't have family values?

I bet I can show you a damn sight more examples of dysfunctional families with heterosexual parents than you can with homosexual parents.

Quote:The sanctity of marriage lies in its importance for society. Not in religion.

But I have seen from people that support this madness, to be quite devoid of any regard for anything, they hold nothing sacred, not society, nor traditions, nor what marriage actually means or represented for cultures since the time it was practiced.

There will be some, yes. There will also be a hell of a lot more that do hold all those things in high regard.

I wasn't aware that marriage was some unalterable law of nature that could only be interpreted in one way. You've got to love the self-righteous constipation here. It can only be this way because that's the way it always was. You know, humans were nomadic hunters and gatherers for far longer than we've had cities and stationary homes. Is civilization wrong? Was it a violation of the natural order to live in a hut and grow crops and tend livestock? I'm sure there were no shortage of people who held this viewpoint circa 13,000-9,000 BCE.

As a white man, that works just as well to justify me enslaving people with brown skin. Society viewed my kind as inherently and naturally superior to people with other skin colors. Did this stop being true? Is it still true but we're living in multicultural denial? Or, was it never true in the first place?

Quote:I'm not claiming that the number is huge, but the precedent is there. Even if there weren't any examples, the fact that 'it's always been that way' just isn't good enough. I gave examples of other traditions, do you support the continuation of those? Slavery has been present in almost all of history, should we allow it because 'it's always been that way'? I'd like to think we can move beyond the archaic discrimination in our past

The marital institution is based on tradition friend. You cannot ignore this aspect. If you want to include everyone into marriage, you must do away with everything that has to do with marriage, including family values, importance of children, and the relation of marriage in respect to society and the state, and turn it into a purely "individualistic" concept that has shed itself of every meaning it held before.

And after you did this, what remains of this age-old institution that formed the basis of society? Nothing. You can call it marriage, but it won't be marriage, it will be something else, an empty word.
Change for the sake of change is chaos. Some things are better left untouched, and in this case, unspoiled.

Quote:But there are people who choose to be infertile. There are also those who discover they're infertile before they marry.

They are fringe examples that have no relevance to the overall picture.
The primary function of the marital institution is to create stability, and to create stability for the purpose of allowing people to have and raise children in a stable environment, that is, having both a definite father and mother, a man and a woman, required for the natural procreation mechanism.
What purpose does it serve for society to allow people that are irrelevant to the marital institution to get married?
None, it serves none. Other than to drain the marital insitution of its purpose, its traditions, and its relation to society.

Quote:But if 2 people can constitute a family, what does it matter if they're the same gender?

No, they can't.

Quote:What makes you think that a homosexual couple can't have family values?

Because they never were part of the traditions that have spawned the said family values. They were not even part of society until halfway of the 20th century, they lived out their lifestyles in secret, and participatd in regular society by means of conforming to its standards.
So they never had any part in the creation of its traditions, neither did they have any part in the marital and familial insitutions.
And the basic natural fact that they cannot procreate and no child will ever be the result of a union of same sex couples simply adds to the reason why they never were a part of these institutions. They're simply not relevant.

Quote:I bet I can show you a damn sight more examples of dysfunctional families with heterosexual parents than you can with homosexual parents.

I bet you can, however it would not count as an argument.
Even the most dysfunctional family is more relevant, they can actually contribute to society via the creation of children, and providing the said children with more or less of a home, and more or less of a father-mother figure.
To have a child, you need a man and a woman, not two men, and not two women. This should give you an idea why the marital institution was based on men and women.

Quote:I wasn't aware that marriage was some unalterable law of nature that could only be interpreted in one way.

Well, interpret it as you wish, I can't tell you how to think.
But marriage is not something that is built on interpretations, its built on traditions,it is built on its relevance to society. The relevance of marriage to society was to create an environment where the familial institution would flourish. That's about it. Its there to provide people with responsibilities, regarding society and the future of society, the children.
Homosexuals on the other hand did not have a comparable responsibility to the propagation of society as heterosexuals did, so they never were included in the marital institution. It's as simple as that. Its not something open to your, or my interpretation.

Quote: It can only be this way because that's the way it always was.

And it was like that for a reason, that's all I'm saying.
You on the other hand deny that there was such a reason.
You're in fact, denying marriage itself.

Quote:You know, humans were nomadic hunters and gatherers for far longer than we've had cities and stationary homes. Is civilization wrong?

Civilisation is inseperable from marriage and family.
However, civilisation can very well exist without the homosexuals roam ing free with their sexual identities and laying claims on things that they never owned, such as marriage.
However civilisation cannot exist without people having children, and certainly not without having children in a stable environment(that is marriage and the traditional family) that includes the people that were involved in the baby-making process.

Quote:Was it a violation of the natural order to live in a hut and grow crops and tend livestock?

Again, living in huts, growing crops and practicing animal husbandry has relevance to society, it provides people with shelter, and a semi-sustainable food source. So does marriage and family institution provide people with a set of responsibilities to raise children in a more secure and more stable environment, while keeping random-sexual relations at a minimum, and the population stable.
What sort of a relevance does it have for us to grant marital rights to homosexuals?
It's not something that is done to benefit society, its done solely to please a minority.

Quote:As a white man, that works just as well to justify me enslaving people with brown skin. Society viewed my kind as inherently and naturally superior to people with other skin colors. Did this stop being true? Is it still true but we're living in multicultural denial? Or, was it never true in the first place?

It really doesn't impress me that you appeal to an entirely different topic to justify your position in this topic. These are not even on the same level, as again, sexual minorities are a lot, lot less relevant to social issues than ethnic/racial minorities are.

(November 15, 2013 at 6:53 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Well, interpret it as you wish, I can't tell you how to think.
But marriage is not something that is built on interpretations, its built on traditions,it is built on its relevance to society. The relevance of marriage to society was to create an environment where the familial institution would flourish. That's about it. Its there to provide people with responsibilities, regarding society and the future of society, the children.

It would seem as though marriage is built on interpretations. In 15 states in my country, homosexual marriages are considered equal in the eyes of the law. You can interpret marriage however you want, but homosexual marriages in those states are treated as equal to my own. And, funny thing, my marriage has not in any way been harmed by this fact.

Quote:Homosexuals on the other hand did not have a comparable responsibility to the propagation of society as heterosexuals did, so they never were included in the marital institution. It's as simple as that. Its not something open to your, or my interpretation.

Again, there are 15 United States in which marriage is now officially no longer only about child rearing. Because, in practice, it never was just about child rearing. And, it's no less about child rearing now because straight people are in no way hindered from raising children, which makes opposition to gay marriage on this basis stupid to an extraordinary degree.

Quote:And it was like that for a reason, that's all I'm saying.
You on the other hand deny that there was such a reason.
You're in fact, denying marriage itself.

And it's not, now. For a reason. Marriage has no singular, objective definition and that doesn't change just because you've arbitrarily decided otherwise.

Quote:Civilisation is inseperable from marriage and family.
However, civilisation can very well exist without the homosexuals roam ing free with their sexual identities and laying claims on things that they never owned, such as marriage.

Civilization will in no way be impaired by people marrying and not having children. It's hardly as if the world is facing an underpopulation crisis, for fuck's sake.

Quote:However civilisation cannot exist without people having children, and certainly not without having children in a stable environment(that is marriage and the traditional family) that includes the people that were involved in the baby-making process.

How will gay people marrying stop straight people from having children?

Quote:Again, living in huts, growing crops and practicing animal husbandry has relevance to society, it provides people with shelter, and a semi-sustainable food source. So does marriage and family institution provide people with a set of responsibilities to raise children in a more secure and more stable environment, while keeping random-sexual relations at a minimum, and the population stable.

So, you've decided these things are important. Does that mean that the traditions of nomads are wrong and inferior?

Quote:What sort of a relevance does it have for us to grant marital rights to homosexuals?
It's not something that is done to benefit society, its done solely to please a minority.

Extending equality to all individuals, rather than trying to exclude them from society for arbitrary reasons, is of undeniable benefit to everybody.

Quote:It really doesn't impress me that you appeal to an entirely different topic to justify your position in this topic. These are not even on the same level, as again, sexual minorities are a lot, lot less relevant to social issues than ethnic/racial minorities are.

It really doesn't impress me that you dodged the questions and justified your cowardice in the stupidest way possible.

On another note, Lion IRC has suddenly become remarkably silent in this thread for some reason.

(November 15, 2013 at 7:11 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Lion IRC has suddenly become remarkably silent in this thread for some reason.

Ooh! ooh! I know why!

It's because Lion actually has a brain that does consider right and wrong, and he sees himself on the side of super-crazy here, and feels uncomfortable?

Am I right, Ryan? Do I get a sparkly pencil or an eraser shaped like a rainbow or something?

Quote:It would seem as though marriage is built on interpretations. In 15 states in my country, homosexual marriages are considered equal in the eyes of the law. You can interpret marriage however you want, but homosexual marriages in those states are treated as equal to my own.

I do not interpret marriage, I simply lay marriage before you as it is. And as it always was. You cannot re-interpret marriage, but you can distort it in a way that it won't be considered marriage any more.

Quote: And, funny thing, my marriage has not in any way been harmed by this fact.

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.
In many ways, I see this as an attack on the marital institution, and therefore, society itself.

Quote:Again, there are 15 United States in which marriage is now officially no longer only about child rearing. Because, in practice, it never was just about child rearing. And, it's no less about child rearing now because straight people are in no way hindered from raising children, which makes opposition to gay marriage on this basis stupid to an extraordinary degree.

No it is, else you wouldn't be pushing for gay adoption and surrogacy.
No orphanage would give out a child to a non-married couple, would they. As for surrogacy, it has not been turned into a large-scale business yet, so gays must turn to orphanages.
Besides, you cannot hinder the people who have a monopoly on the power of creating children in the common sense, no you cannot, though you can make it look worthless, as it won't matter anymore if a child grows up within a normal, healthy family that consists of the people that were responsible with its creation, but rather in many alternative types of "families". And they want these to become the norm, while assaulting the norm of the traditional family.

Quote:And it's not, now. For a reason. Marriage has no singular, objective definition and that doesn't change just because you've arbitrarily decided otherwise.

Well, the definition of marriage is strongly tied to its purpose, and without its purpose, it has no definition. As I had said before, you want marriage to be devoid of a definition so you can leave it up to individuals to interpret it as they want to. And the state must agree without any regards to the social importance of marriage, and yield before the demands of fringe groups, to define marriage as they will, and force the authorities to give it a legal status.
Of course, all under the name of liberty, and freedom. Freedom to destroy one of society's most fundamental institutions.

Quote:Civilization will in no way be impaired by people marrying and not having children. It's hardly as if the world is facing an underpopulation crisis, for fuck's sake.

And again you strike at the heterosexual marriage. The whole point of marriage is to restrict procreation into a stable and safe environment, bound by a social and legal contract.
Then why should heterosexual couples get married?
This answer is simple, to get "legal benefits", its not about love, its about materialism. Its about legally sharing property, and getting it split during the breakup. Is there any other reason? Love? As Violet stated in the previous pages, you can be in love without getting married.
And now you deprived it of its major purpose of gracing society with the next generations.

Quote:How will gay people marrying stop straight people from having children?

They can't, because they(straight people) are the only ones who can have chidlren. But as they create children, naturally, they should they be the ones to look after them. They should be the ones who raise them. These were the values that were espoused by the marriage we knew, that a child needs a father and a mother, and it indeed does, as otherwise, it cannot exist in the first place.
But you want a natural process to be ignored, and give people who are unable to create children, the right to parenthood. You essentially deprive any concepts of parenthood that are the basis of society of any meaning.
Just as marriage, parenthood was something that was exclusive to a man and a woman.
And what exactly was wrong with that one? But this is what it was all about. Because parenthood, is a revered, sacred concept. You cannot deprive it of its sactity, even if you try to. You can claim not to recognize the sanctity of marriage, but you cannot deny the sanctity of parenthood.
As you can't deny it, you want to desecrate it. You want it to be available to people that are irrelevant to the concept, just as marriage.
What exactly is so wrong with the traditional concepts of marriage and parenthood, which have been the basis of nearly every civilisation, that you want to change it according to the whims and fancies of a group of individuals that walk the back-alleys of society to live out their lifestyles?

Quote:So, you've decided these things are important. Does that mean that the traditions of nomads are wrong and inferior?

Well, my people are descendants of nomads, though not the paleothic kind. We had tents and livestock. And well, we do still respect and revere our nomadic ancestors, and look up to them for guidance. They have formed the basis of our family values, and our morals, our culture and our traditions.
So did the paleothic hunter gatherhers form the basis of the first settled populations. And even though they were primitive, and lacked many of the moral concepts that we have developed until today, they were aware that this homosexual marriage and parenthood garbage was irrelevant and, pardon me, quite stupid, as their settled successors designed marriage and family to encompass heterosexual couples only.

Quote:Extending equality to all individuals, rather than trying to exclude them from society for arbitrary reasons, is of undeniable benefit to everybody.

Equality is only for equals. In terms of nature, they are not equal. In terms of parenthood, they are not equal. In terms of marriage, they are not equal. They are not equal. This is as to raise funds for a man who has never worked in his life, in order to buy him a Ferrari. Then he can be equal with the guy who worked for his Ferrari.

Quote:It really doesn't impress me that you dodged the questions and justified your cowardice in the stupidest way possible.

I do not dodge questions. You made reference to something else that was unrelated to this topic.

(November 15, 2013 at 6:53 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: The marital institution is based on tradition friend. You cannot ignore this aspect.

I'm doing no such thing. That's why I addressed that very issue in my last two posts. I don't recall you providing a relevant refutation, however. Merely repeating that it's a tradition doesn't cut it btw

Quote:If you want to include everyone into marriage, you must do away with everything that has to do with marriage, including family values, importance of children, and the relation of marriage in respect to society and the state, and turn it into a purely "individualistic" concept that has shed itself of every meaning it held before.

And after you did this, what remains of this age-old institution that formed the basis of society?

Tell me again how that doesn't apply to heterosexual couple that choose not to have children.

Quote:Nothing. You can call it marriage, but it won't be marriage, it will be something else, an empty word.
Change for the sake of change is chaos. Some things are better left untouched, and in this case, unspoiled.

But it's not just for the sake of it, though.

Quote:They are fringe examples that have no relevance to the overall picture.

It's totally relevant. It undermines your position. But hey, why refute a point that compromises your argument when you can just dismiss it as irrelevant, right?

Quote:The primary function of the marital institution is to create stability, and to create stability for the purpose of allowing people to have and raise children in a stable environment, that is, having both a definite father and mother, a man and a woman, required for the natural procreation mechanism.

What purpose does it serve for society to allow people that are irrelevant to the marital institution to get married?
None, it serves none. Other than to drain the marital insitution of its purpose, its traditions, and its relation to society.

Yeah, that's right. Because procreation didn't happen until marriage was invented. Even today, there are no unmarried couples that provide a stable environment for their children. Oh, no wait, you're talking shit.

Marriage doesn't create a stable environment. An unstable relationship doesn't magically become stronger just because the couple in question get married.

(November 15, 2013 at 6:53 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:

Optimistic Misanthrope Wrote:But if 2 people can constitute a family, what does it matter if they're the same gender?

No, they can't.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood you when you said 'these do not go against the fact that marriage is connected to the institution of family'

So, you know, I just figured that if a heterosexual couple that doesn't have children is still connection to the institution of marriage, there would be no reason why a homosexual couple couldn't be connected to it as well.

Hang on, can you run that one by me again? I think your explanation must have been drowned out by homophobia.

Quote:Because they never were part of the traditions that have spawned the said family values. They were not even part of society until halfway of the 20th century, they lived out their lifestyles in secret, and participatd in regular society by means of conforming to its standards.
So they never had any part in the creation of its traditions, neither did they have any part in the marital and familial insitutions.

Again, I have already said why using tradition as an argument is insufficient. If you care to show me why I am wrong about that, please do so

Quote:And the basic natural fact that they cannot procreate and no child will ever be the result of a union of same sex couples simply adds to the reason why they never were a part of these institutions. They're simply not relevant.

And I refer you to infertile couples again. I think we're starting to run low on special pleading fallacies. Would you be a dear and order some more? They'll be none left for the theists at this rate.

(November 15, 2013 at 6:53 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:

Optimistic Misanthrope Wrote:I bet I can show you a damn sight more examples of dysfunctional families with heterosexual parents than you can with homosexual parents.

I bet you can, however it would not count as an argument.

Yes it would. It would argue against your claim that only heterosexual couples can provide family values and a stable environment for children.

Quote:Even the most dysfunctional family is more relevant, they can actually contribute to society via the creation of children, and providing the said children with more or less of a home, and more or less of a father-mother figure.

Oh, right. I suppose couples that adopt children aren't contributing to society either then? Are you gonna invoke more special pleading on behalf of single parents? After all, they're not providing their child(ren) with both a mother and father figure.

Quote:To have a child, you need a man and a woman, not two men, and not two women. This should give you an idea why the marital institution was based on men and women.

That's an extremely good point. I can't see that changing.

sperm cells created from female embryo

Scientists Create Sperm and Eggs from Skin Cells, Regardless of Donor Gender

Quote:Well, interpret it as you wish, I can't tell you how to think.
But marriage is not something that is built on interpretations, its built on traditions,it is built on its relevance to society. The relevance of marriage to society was to create an environment where the familial institution would flourish. That's about it. Its there to provide people with responsibilities, regarding society and the future of society, the children.

Great big hairy bollocks. Getting married doesn't make you any more responsible, it doesn't magically create a perfect family environment and I'm getting bored of calling you on the whole "tradition" thing. I'll give it another go, though:

wikipedia Wrote:England abolished clandestine or common law marriages in the Marriage Act 1753,[citation needed] requiring marriages to be performed by a priest of the Church of England unless the participants in the marriage were Jews or Quakers. The Act applied to Wales. The Act did not apply to Scotland because by the Acts of Union 1707 Scotland retained its own legal system. To get around the requirements of the Marriage Act, such as minimum age requirements, couples would go to Gretna Green, in southern Scotland, to get married under Scots law.
Marriages by Per Verba De Praesenti, sometimes known as common law marriages, were an agreement to marry, rather than a marriage.
The Marriage Act of 1753 also did not apply to Britain's overseas colonies of the time, so common law marriages continued to be recognized in the future United States and Canada. In the United States, common law marriage can still be contracted in Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, the District of Columbia, or under military law. Except for same-sex interpersonal unions contracted by habit and repute, all jurisdictions recognize common law marriages that were validly contracted in the originating jurisdiction, because they are valid marriages in the jurisdiction where they were contracted.
All other European jurisdictions having long abolished "marriage by habit and repute", Scotland became the last to do so in 2006

Hmmm, seems like this grand old tradition only really dates back about 250 years. I could find anything on Turkey, so maybe it's older there. But in England? Shit, our new institutions are older than that.

Quote:Civilisation is inseperable from marriage and family.

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

Quote:However civilisation cannot exist without people having children, and certainly not without having children in a stable environment(that is marriage and the traditional family) that includes the people that were involved in the baby-making process.

That's right, same-sex marriage will stop heterosexuals having babies.

Quote:So does marriage and family institution provide people with a set of responsibilities to raise children in a more secure and more stable environment, while keeping random-sexual relations at a minimum, and the population stable.

But the population isn't stable, it's fucking exploding (pun not intended). There's projected to be 10 billion of us by the end of the century!

Quote:What sort of a relevance does it have for us to grant marital rights to homosexuals?
It's not something that is done to benefit society, its done solely to please a minority.

Yeah, a minority that includes at least 150 million people worldwide

Source(s):
The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior - Samuel S. Janus and Cynthia L. Janus.
Homosexuality/Heterosexuality - David P. McWhirter, Stephanie A. Sanders, and June Machover Reinisch.
Sexual Behavior in the Human Male - Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, and Clyde E. Martin.
Sexual Behavior in the Human Female - Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, and Paul H. Gerhard.[/align]

Quote:I'm doing no such thing. That's why I addressed that very issue in my last two posts. I don't recall you providing a relevant refutation, however. Merely repeating that it's a tradition doesn't cut it btw

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.
So you either must abandon marriage and the family institution, or you must continue it as it is. If you deprive marriage of its traditions, it won't be marriage.
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.

Quote:Tell me again how that doesn't apply to heterosexual couple that choose not to have children.

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.

Quote:Again, I have already said why using tradition as an argument is insufficient. If you care to show me why I am wrong about that, please do so

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.

Quote:And I refer you to infertile couples again. I think we're starting to run low on special pleading fallacies. Would you be a dear and order some more? They'll be none left for the theists at this rate.

Biologically only a male and a female can breed successfully to give life to a child. The fact that infertile couples exist does not change this, does it now?
Due to this fact, infertile heterosexual couples are still couples that fit the tradition of the "man and woman" in marriage, husband and wife.
The tradition that was build on the natural mechanics of reproduction.

Quote:Yes it would. It would argue against your claim that only heterosexual couples can provide family values and a stable environment for children.

Biologically they are able to produce children, so they should be the ones to look after children. Even if that's not the case, and they abandon the child, it should still be under the custody of a family that fits the said standards. They should be a married, heterosexual couple. A child needs a man and a woman to exist, and it should have a father and mother while it grows up.
You must set an ideal for what you call family, else there would be no values attached to the concept of family.
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.
Give it to the homosexuals, and they will breed only confusion.

Quote:Oh, right. I suppose couples that adopt children aren't contributing to society either then? Are you gonna invoke more special pleading on behalf of single parents? After all, they're not providing their child(ren) with both a mother and father figure.

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.
Besides, we all know that single-parenthood is not the best way to raise a child due to the inherent difficulties associated with it. There is a reason why people have families, and why they build those families on the sacred foundation of marriage. For single parenting is a lot harder, looking after the child, while working and providing for him/her. 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.

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.

Quote:That's an extremely good point. I can't see that changing.

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.

Quote:Great big hairy bollocks. Getting married doesn't make you any more responsible, it doesn't magically create a perfect family environment and I'm getting bored of calling you on the whole "tradition" thing. I'll give it another go, though:

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 eachother. If you're not a person that can accept these responsibilities, you're probably still a child.

Quote:Hmmm, seems like this grand old tradition only really dates back about 250 years. I could find anything on Turkey, so maybe it's older there. But in England? Shit, our new institutions are older than that.

We have that aswell, but its a new phenomenon. In the Ottoman empire, all marriages were to be ratified by the local mullah for the children to actually receive the family name.
Today it only applies when a man marries a second woman, which is illegal in Turkey, and their marriage is not recognized by law, so its not even a marriage.
Marriage must also be ratified by a governing body to be a marriage.
New laws regarding it were enacted, sure, but the institution of marriage itself existed during the Ottoman times, during the Seljuk times, and during the times of the Oghuz Yabgu state. And its particulars were more or less the same. Only the legal language changed.

Quote: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?

Quote:That's right, same-sex marriage will stop heterosexuals having babies.

I made a reply about that a few posts back. Read that one.

Quote:But the population isn't stable, it's fucking exploding (pun not intended). There's projected to be 10 billion of us by the end of the century!

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

Quote:Yeah, a minority that includes at least 150 million people worldwide

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.

If you strip away all of the justifications for your viewpoint which are demonstrably arbitrary or lacking any basis in objective reality, you have, as a defense of keeping marriage traditional, "I think gay sex is icky and there are few enough of them that we can get away with treating them as second-class citizens".

(November 15, 2013 at 11:40 pm)Ryantology Wrote: If you strip away all of the justifications for your viewpoint which are demonstrably arbitrary, you have, as a defense of keeping marriage traditional, "gay sex is icky and there are few enough of them that we can get away with treating them as second-class citizens".

I really do not care what they do in their bedrooms. I don't care, really. I tend not to think about it too much for it to affect my judgement.
There are a lot of things that are a lot more disgusting and are done by straight people. Even by those who are married. However the institution of marriage is bound by traditions. Whether you like it or not. It is bound by traditions.
You people are liberals, anti-culture, anti-tradition. The only reason you support marriage is to destroy the said traditions. Because after you do, marriage won't be relevant anymore, as the values associated with marriage won't be relevant anymore.
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.