 |
| |
|
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Hmm. Why not, this seems like a fun stupid argument to get into. For starters, what do you think the purpose of marriage is, PA and opponents? Seems like the best place to begin is to decide what it's all for and why it should or shouldn't be exclusive to specific combinations of genitalia... |
Marriage basically serves two purposes:
1) Getting tax deductions, inheritance, etc, from the state.
2) Getting the sanction of God/society/the tooth fairy for screwing your significant other.
Personally, I'd like these two functions separated.
As for specific combinations of genitalia, and don't see why it should matter for the first one. For the second, well, God/society/the tooth fairy might object to certain combos. Take it up with Him/they/her.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ajbera
|
 |
of the Cookieville Minimum Security Orphanarium
Apr 1999
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snowflake
What is marriage any way? The key to the argument is why we are arguing it. |
Actually, the first question is: what situation is there that calls for some kind of policy/law/institution? The second is: what policy/law/institution shall we enact to remedy/improve this situation?
The situation is that families need as stable a foundation as possible so the children have the greatest chance of becoming constructive and positive members of society. While individual effort will always be important, we recognize that humanity (& human society) must continue into the future, so families are a must.
Given that we don't have huge communal tribe-families, but more discreet family units, what policy shall we put in place that gives the family the strongest base from which to start & grow? Since children come from male/female pairings, and, since it takes a lot of effort to raise children, it is best for this pairing to be very stable & sustained, let us enact a policy whereby a male and a female can swear an oath to each other to commit their lives together for the purpose of having and raising children. And if the male and female make each other happy, well, that's nice too.
Hence, marriage, defined as the sanctioned union between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family.
Bear in mind, my wife & I do not have children and have no intention of doing so (I've seriously considered a vasectomy just to make sure), and since I believe my wife and I should be allowed to have a legal, state-sanctioned union so we can share our worldly belongings, entitlements and responsibilities in a ddition to our love, I believe any 2 people, whether they want a family or not, should be allowed to marry.
But the reason why the State has an interest in a male/female pairing is because of families. Even the religious dictates for heterosexual bonding are family-oriented.
I think that should society should either come out and say it's okay for 2 people to wed even if they don't want children, and thus allow gay marriage, or say family is all important and you can't marry at all (even hetero couples) unless you intend on reproducing.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:33
|
|
Gah, only one person answered me. Not that that's an unusual occurence. Anyway, the SC anti-antisodomy ruling is extremely significant, I think. In effect, they said the gov't. has no business nosing into what its constituents are shoving into each other where. So the government sponsoring sexuality in general doesn't fit the current precedent. Even if it did, being the inconsiderate blaggards they are, I bet those naughty homosexuals would keep having sex with each other even without our permission, if you can believe it.
Given how screwed up families have become, ensuring a healthy upbringing for children doesn't make sense either. There's tons of adoption, IVF from sperm banks (which I oppose, but that's another story), successful single parents, living-in-sin parents, and married parents who aren't competent to take care of a puppy, let alone a child. There's not much traditional family left to protect, on the extreme outside chance that anybody who wants to marry another person of the same sex could be convinced to form a "traditional family" instead without the use of thumb screws.
Social dynamics have changed. If anyone is gonna change them back, it won't be the government.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-08-2004 00:59
) animals nicely while all adults are included! 
|