(June 29, 2015 at 2:09 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Never mind the fact that two people in love should be allowed to marry regardless of gender

Honestly I find this argument ridiculous because love is and should never be a requirement in marriage - Two people can choose to marry for many reasons, namely economic, social and pragmatic ones - There's legal benefits people get from marriage. The argument of love is a terrible one for any marriage at all.

So it's ok that my wife and I hate each other?

(June 29, 2015 at 2:00 pm)Aristocatt Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 1:55 pm)robvalue Wrote: You want marriage for homonyms now too? One step at a time

The moral decay of this nation is not happening fast enough.  The religious are expecting us to push for bestiality next.  I figure by supporting the rights of words before animals we can confuse them and they won't have a proper argument prepared.

Do not be ridiculous. Polygamy first (already a case at the appellate level), then the age restriction (first case of a 13 year old wanting to marry the 18 year old they are in love with), then incest (anything to stay out of jail), then after people secure rights for animal (they just lost the most recent case in New York District court), then Beastiality!!

Be reasonable!

(June 29, 2015 at 1:42 pm)robvalue Wrote: Err...

I don't know fuck all about law so debating me about law is pointless. Also, it's law now, so it's moot

Any non-legal reason why there is any point to prohibiting same sex marriage. What harm does it do to anything? What's the problem? Why would society be better off continuing to prohibit it?

I guess I would prefer a moral/societal argument, but whatever you want to do. I have no idea what it has to do with economics, and I'm no expert on that either.

I don't care about history or biology in regard to this matter, unless you can convince me they are relevant.

I'm all for removing financial benefit to being married, that is dumb.

I would say any argument of a moral or societal nature will incorporate biology into the matter.

Moral argument may be made in accordance with the argument to teleological ends (biology). It may readily be shown the purpose of biological life is the procreation of the species as more creatures live only long enough to procreate than live beyond mere procreative maturity. While arguments to same sex being natural are akin to arguing the physical laws of existence allow it so it is the intentional outcome of those laws. In which case it may readily be argued the physical/natural laws allow for the killing of weak things, thus the intentional outcome of those laws is that weak things be killed. Thus we are better fitted to arguing according to teleology rather than physical limitation when discussing "natural".

Societal argument may be readily made in the wasting of limited resources, ethical associations, and procreation of the species (biology). Under such an argument society does not exist without the continuation of the species, said species/societies consume resources which are limited and not indefinite, in which case resources should be favorably allocated to those who are most likely to contribute to the continuation of society rather than those who are least likely. As recognized society is a means of securing resources and sustenance. Now we may argue the desire to separate the useful from the useless; which is to say to curtail the association of one with the other to increase the survival of the one. Under this argument it is by compassion those who do not contribute are not summarily eliminated (but if we are to argue purely in social terms there is no good reason for not eliminating those who do not contribute or whom will not readily contribute, aka children).

Those are cursory argument devoid of proper details. Which would you like to argue?

(June 29, 2015 at 4:45 pm)Anima Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 2:00 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: The moral decay of this nation is not happening fast enough.  The religious are expecting us to push for bestiality next.  I figure by supporting the rights of words before animals we can confuse them and they won't have a proper argument prepared.

Do not be ridiculous.  Polygamy first (already a case at the appellate level), then the age restriction (first case of a 13 year old wanting to marry the 18 year old they are in love with), then incest (anything to stay out of jail), then after people secure rights for animal (they just lost the most recent case in New York District court), then Beastiality!!

Be reasonable!

HAHAHAHAAHAH     THE LAND OF NARNIA IS TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    

No offences but those were some really F-up look an-humans (animal /human)
My heart goes out to the women who birth such a lovely thing.

(June 29, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: My point is that how a word is used is a little bit more important than the etymology when defining meaning.  I was also having a little fun by saying that I googled "what is a civil right".

You were trying to point out that somebody either used the wrong word "civil" as opposed to "fundamental", or that because it is a "civil" right, that SCOTUS getting involved with it is wrong.
I am trying to point out that words have multiple meanings, and the way you have defined a civil right, is not the way most English speakers use the word anymore.

Ace did use the word properly. Civil is conjugate of Civic which mean rights or duties conferred or owed by the State or to the State.

Furthermore Ace is correct in pointing out the Civil rights movement was in regards to african americans preexisting right to vote. The movement was to secure further protection in the execution of the preexisting right. Where as the same sex marriage is seeking extension of or redefinition of a right which was not already awarded, but subsequently barred by discriminatory practices. As expressed readily by Chief Justice John Roberts.

(June 29, 2015 at 5:00 pm)Anima Wrote: Those are cursory argument devoid of proper details.  Which would you like to argue?

Happy to debate either. . .but just for fun:

In terms of societal. . .you bring up an awesome point!  Resources are limited, and our population is exploding.  The last thing we need is a higher proportion of straight people having too many kids and using up even more of our dwindling resources.  So we should probably make marriage only for homosexuals in order to incentivize more people to be homosexual!!!

---

(June 29, 2015 at 5:12 pm)Aristocatt Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 5:00 pm)Anima Wrote: Those are cursory argument devoid of proper details.  Which would you like to argue?

Happy to debate either. . .but just for fun:

In terms of societal. . .you bring up an awesome point!  Resources are limited, and our population is exploding.  The last thing we need is a higher proportion of straight people having too many kids and using up even more of our dwindling resources.  So we should probably make marriage only for homosexuals in order to incentivize more people to be homosexual!!!

Ha ha. I like that. However, life is a numbers game and your analysis must make consideration of the impact of wars, plagues, and famines as well as the rate of re-population. I would agree with your assessment if the rate of human maturity was handled in the expanse of merely a year or two. Given the need of at least a decade if not two to reach productive and procreative utility we would be best to consider our argument to having more or less in the terms of it being easier to disgard more than it would be to acquire more. So we should encourage a surplus to be discarded at leisure rather than a shortfall which may not readily be replaced, before deficiency become irrevocable.

(June 29, 2015 at 5:00 pm)Anima Wrote: Moral argument may be made in accordance with the argument to teleological ends (biology). It may readily be shown the purpose of biological life is the procreation of the species as more creatures live only long enough to procreate than live beyond mere procreative maturity. While arguments to same sex being natural are akin to arguing the physical laws of existence allow it so it is the intentional outcome of those laws. In which case it may readily be argued the physical/natural laws allow for the killing of weak things, thus the intentional outcome of those laws is that weak things be killed. Thus we are better fitted to arguing according to teleology rather than physical limitation when discussing "natural".

Procreation isn't the only purpose of sex.

Quote:Societal argument may be readily made in the wasting of limited resources, ethical associations, and procreation of the species (biology). Under such an argument society does not exist without the continuation of the species, said species/societies consume resources which are limited and not indefinite, in which case resources should be favorably allocated to those who are most likely to contribute to the continuation of society rather than those who are least likely. As recognized society is a means of securing resources and sustenance. Now we may argue the desire to separate the useful from the useless; which is to say to curtail the association of one with the other to increase the survival of the one. Under this argument it is by compassion those who do not contribute are not summarily eliminated (but if we are to argue purely in social terms there is no good reason for not eliminating those who do not contribute or whom will not readily contribute, aka children).

Overpopulation.


Everything you have is that gays can't procreate. What about infertile straight couples? What about straight couples who don't want children? Is that immoral too? What about orphans, waiting for adoption? Is it moral to keep making more children?

Is there a reason why same sex relationships are immoral? Not talking about religion, kids, or the slippery slope. What's so objectionable about two guys or two gals fucking? What seems to be the problem?

(June 29, 2015 at 5:12 pm)Aristocatt Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 5:00 pm)Anima Wrote: Those are cursory argument devoid of proper details.  Which would you like to argue?

Happy to debate either. . .but just for fun:

In terms of societal. . .you bring up an awesome point!  Resources are limited, and our population is exploding.  The last thing we need is a higher proportion of straight people having too many kids and using up even more of our dwindling resources.  So we should probably make marriage only for homosexuals in order to incentivize more people to be homosexual!!!

---

Well the idea would be not to kill off the human species but, to minimize it to the a right number of the population to the amount of resources. So you would need straight couples and to control their numbers it may be good to incorporate China's one child law at all but, make it so that the couple really do have just one child.