(May 9, 2014 at 10:57 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:

(May 9, 2014 at 10:53 pm)Heywood Wrote: It doesn't matter that they can co-exist.

Only to you, because you are of the notion that anything which disagrees with your skewed worldview must be abhorrent. The only abhorrence is your inability to see past your god-covered bigotry.

Its ironic because belief in God gives me reason to suspect that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal. Its only when I suspend my belief in God does equality of the two orientations become implausible.

(May 9, 2014 at 11:03 pm)Heywood Wrote: Its ironic because belief in God gives me reason to suspect that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal. Its only when I suspend my belief in God does equality of the two orientations become implausible.

You can suspend your belief in god? Hrm...

(May 9, 2014 at 11:03 pm)Heywood Wrote: Its ironic because belief in God gives me reason to suspect that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal. Its only when I suspend my belief in God does equality of the two orientations become implausible.

How does that work, precisely? Please, elaborate.

(May 9, 2014 at 11:03 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: What, exactly is the benefit to society that same sex couples cannot provide?

Same sex couple cannot produce offspring with a partner they love.

(May 9, 2014 at 11:11 pm)Heywood Wrote: Same sex couple cannot produce offspring with a partner they love.

Irrelevant, considering that they can adopt or find a surrogate.

(May 9, 2014 at 11:08 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:

(May 9, 2014 at 11:03 pm)Heywood Wrote: Its ironic because belief in God gives me reason to suspect that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal. Its only when I suspend my belief in God does equality of the two orientations become implausible.

How does that work, precisely? Please, elaborate.

It works by changing an assumption and reaching a different conclusion.

Let me show with two arguments.

Premise 1a: If God exists, you will go to hell.
Premise 2a: If God doesn't exist, you will not go to hell.
Premise 3a: God exists.
Conclusion A: You are destined to go to hell.

Premise 1a: If God exists, you will go to hell.
Premise 2a: If God doesn't exist, you will not go to hell.
Premise 3b: God does not exist.
Conclusion B: You are not destined to go to hell.

---

(May 9, 2014 at 11:13 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:

(May 9, 2014 at 11:11 pm)Heywood Wrote: Same sex couple cannot produce offspring with a partner they love.

Irrelevant, considering that they can adopt or find a surrogate.

Adoption is not producing an offspring. It is parenting someone else's offspring.

A surrogate is generally not someone you love.

(May 9, 2014 at 10:30 pm)Heywood Wrote: Government should be out of the marriage business completely.

Actually, it's the church that should be kicked out of the business of arranging legally binding agreements between consenting individuals. They have no business there.

---

(May 9, 2014 at 10:53 pm)Heywood Wrote: The judge decided there is no rational basis to ban gay marriage. I'm afraid he is just plain wrong because a good case can be made that heterosexual unions provide more value to a society/population.

Bullshit!

(May 9, 2014 at 11:19 pm)Heywood Wrote: Premise 1a: If God exists, you will go to hell.
Premise 2a: If God doesn't exist, you will not go to hell.
Premise 3a: God exists.
Conclusion A: You are destined to go to hell.

That is obviously ill logic. You are working on the premise that god does exist, when there is clearly no evidence for his existence. First, you must prove that he exists. Only once it has been proven that god does exist can you make the claim that you have.

(May 9, 2014 at 11:19 pm)Heywood Wrote: Adoption is not producing an offspring. It is parenting someone else's offspring.

Irrelevant. The world is overpopulated and many children never experience family because they are stuck in the foster system or orphanages until they come of age. Adoption allows the family unit to prosper.

(May 9, 2014 at 11:19 pm)Heywood Wrote: A surrogate is generally not someone you love.

Irrelevant. The surrogate is kind enough to provide a loving couple with a new addition to the family unit.

(May 9, 2014 at 11:19 pm)Heywood Wrote: Adoption is not producing an offspring. It is parenting someone else's offspring.

A surrogate is generally not someone you love.

So you are saying that parenting the offspring of someone else is not a benefit to society? Or creating offspring with your partner, whom you love, with a surrogate, is not a benefit to society?

Do you think that heterosexual couples who have no intention on having children should be incentivized?

(May 9, 2014 at 11:30 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Do you think that heterosexual couples who have no intention on having children should be incentivized?

The union of young child bearing couples has more value to a society/population than the union of a couple who are past their child bearing years. A thought experiment is all that is needed to prove this. Imagine if all couples were transformed into old couples who are past their child bearing years.....it would be a catastrophe. Now imagine if all couples were transformed into younger couples within their child bearing years....society/population wouldn't miss a beat.

The state may want to incentivize the union of young couples and not incentivize the union of old. A rational argument can be made to ban old people marriage. This might not be a good thing to do....but that is besides to point. The action has a rational basis for it. The judge claimed there was no rational reason to ban gay marriage....which is silly...rational reasons are a dime a dozen.