Illinois to become 15th state to recognize marriage equality

[kılıç_mehmet]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.