toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[Town Heretic]

I don't see the government enforcing contracts as equivalent to their role in the marriage contract.

Try distinguishing its function compared to a corporation...though I suppose the government is much more involved with a corporation.

If you want to call them a 3rd party to all contracts in that sense, OK, but I find it a bit odd and don't see the need.

Then you aren't thinking beyond the institution of the contract. Dissolution, protection, etc. And the corporation receives benefits, tax breaks and the like. What distinguishes the treatment save for the literal distinction in purpose between them?

In a few of my more recent posts I have been questioning the foundation of some of the government benefits given to married couples, but given how the laws exist and are written now, I have not denied that homosexual couples should receive them along with everyone else.

I didn't misunderstand your position in that regard. Just wanted to carry you a little further in terms of the contractual argument.

 

[chrysostom]

How does legalizing same-sex marriage endanger children?

it doesn't
but
why do two adults living together need the protection that we give a child?

 

[Town Heretic]

it doesn't
but
why do two adults living together need the protection that we give a child?

Which two adults?

Why do you insist on continuing to assert a thing that isn't established by argument is the foundational basis for consideration?

And even if you want to assume that basis, why assume a same sex couple will be childless. Many aren't. The Catholic Church understands this.

 

[chrysostom]

the child is our future
and
we should protect those who are protecting the child

two people living together do not need protection or our approval

 

[Rusha]

the child is our future
and
we should protect those who are protecting the child

Which has nothing to do with allowing gay marriage. IF it is fine for a heterosexual couple to not be able to biologically produce children from their union, then the same holds true for homosexuals.

two people living together do not need protection or our approval

This has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Marriage is not for the sole purpose of producing families. However, IF you wish to be consistent, you should be advocating that marriage licenses only be given to couples AFTER being tested to verify they CAN have children and if they don't by a certain time limit, the marriage is annulled.

You and Zippy have no argument outside of religious bias that has not been countered. You should really just stop while you are behind.

 

[Town Heretic]

the child is our future

Possibly. Or the next Hitler, Ted Bundy, liberal judge. You just never know.

and
we should protect those who are protecting the child

I agree, except we're all protecting the child and we all deserve protecting.

two people living together do not need protection or our approval

Why don't they?

 

[zippy2006]

zippy and rex....
I don't mean to barge in but I just wanted to quickly throw in my two cents on something because I feel like you two might be talking past each other on one issue.

Rex, you asked zippy
"So lets have it straight. Do you agree, legally marriage is a contract?"

I think the difference might be how you see the government's role in the situation.

I think zippy, when he talks about a contract, is referring an agreement between the two persons getting married. Then, the government plays a 3rd party role and bestows various benefits into the marriage as well. Certain benefits that two people can't go to a lawyer on their own. They are unique to the government getting involved.

rex, you see this as all in the same contract and don't really separate the parts that relate to the couple and the parts that relate to the government.

It is the governments role that is "more than" a contract.

Earlier zippy said he doesn't care if a homosexual couple contracts, but it is "merely" (there's that word ) a contract between two people that they can go to a lawyer for.




I could be way off and if I am, just tell me and I'll go back into my corner and watch quietly. I just think more progress could be made but the discussion is getting held up by some semantical things.


:wave2:

Quite right Kmo, I pointed this out explicitly to TH earlier. In light of TH's response I would clarify that the state enters as more than a mediator, but as an actual party within the contract via benefits and subsidies. Rex (and TH) is ignoring that part of marriage, sometimes explicitly, "What legal marriage is can be, and typically is, defined in a short paragraph, the government subsidies aside."

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Quite right Kmo, I pointed this out explicitly to TH earlier. In light of TH's response I would clarify that the state enters as more than a mediator, but as an actual party within the contract via benefits and subsidies.

And to remind you, kmo, whenever you get to this, it does that for corporations. And, in the larger sense, every contract carries the benefit of statute in support of claim and establishment and limitation of liability, etc. Or, in other words, the state is involved, directly or indirectly, in benefiting most parties to contract.

Now you may feel any contract is sacred, holds a measure of God's authority by virtue of Romans, or some other holy book, or you may think that notion a cloud filled with hooey. But regardless, kmo, the contract remains.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

And to remind you, kmo, whenever you get to this, it does that for corporations.

...in a very different way but for precisely the same reason, a reason which is not consistent with giving such benefits to homosexual couples based on the arguments given.

 

[Town Heretic]

...in a very different way but for precisely the same reason, a reason which is not consistent with giving such benefits to homosexuals based on the arguments given.

Kmo, there's just nothing to back that assumption/assertion. There's nothing beyond the biological act of procreation between two parties that distinguishes the two unions. And given the homosexual can, with assistance, both produce biologically derived children for their union and/or adopt and provide good homes and foundations for children otherwise unwanted, this returns to a purely dogmatic and moral distinction that should no more determine the law for every man than the notion Catholics should be denied the vote if enough men suspect they take their marching orders from Rome.

And I think I've set out everything else clearly enough for you not to be hoodwinked by Zip's creative approach.

Good hunting. :e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Kmo, there's just nothing to back that assumption/assertion. There's nothing beyond the biological act of procreation between two parties that distinguishes the two unions. And given the homosexual can, with assistance, both produce biologically derived children for their union and/or adopt and provide good homes and foundations for children otherwise unwanted, this returns to a purely dogmatic and moral distinction that should no more determine the law for every man than the notion Catholics should be denied the vote if enough men suspect they take their marching orders from Rome.

And I think I've set out everything else clearly enough for you not to be hoodwinked by Zip's creative approach.

Good hunting. :e4e:

You're back to the same assertions and ad hominems. Kmo can at least understand and acknowledge the argument, whether it convinces him or not, which seems to be pretty rare around here. I'm sure he can figure it out without your emotional string-pulling.

:e4e:

 

[Granite]

You're back to the same assertions and ad hominems. Kmo can at least understand and acknowledge the argument, whether it convinces him or not, which seems to be pretty rare around here. I'm sure he can figure it out without your emotional string-pulling.

:e4e:

Why is this issue so important to you?

 

[zippy2006]

Why is this issue so important to you?

It is deeply linked to our future society, especially the children who will have no say in what is handed down to them. Furthermore, the side that our current relativistic society is biased against often gets dismissed without any serious inquiry, even from generally smart and open-minded people. It is an issue that is being decided on a whim rather than on rationality, and wrongly imo. :e4e:

 

[Granite]

It is deeply linked to our future society, especially the children who will have no say in what is handed down to them.

Ah, yes. Because one generation can't ever change what another generation did. (Did it occur to you that the world handed to those who are making these changes was radically different from the world their parents gave them?)

 

[zippy2006]

It is deeply linked to our future society, especially the children who will have no say in what is handed down to them.

Ah, yes. Because one generation can't ever change what another generation did. (Did it occur to you that the world handed to those who are making these changes was radically different from the world their parents gave them?)

I believe that our society is leaning toward a lesser future for our children and future citizens because of this issue. Now in what way is your response relevant to that fact? :think:

 

[Granite]

I believe that our society is leaning toward a lesser future for our children and future citizens because of this issue. Now in what way is your response relevant to that fact? :think:

This belief is ill-informed, outdated, inaccurate, and on the losing side of history. Your belief, zipster, is in no way fact, although I do recognize it as a very near and dear opinion of yours. Now: do you acknowledge that generations have made dramatic changes for the better in this country that the previous generation and status quo regarded as disastrous and/or short-sighted?

 

[zippy2006]

This belief is ill-informed, outdated, inaccurate, and on the losing side of history. Your belief, zipster, is in no way fact, although I do recognize it as a very near and dear opinion of yours.

You asked me why it mattered to me. :idunno:

Now: do you acknowledge that generations have made dramatic changes for the better in this country that the previous generation and status quo regarded as disastrous and/or short-sighted?

Of course. Do you acknowledge that generations have made dramatic changes for the worse in this country that the previous generation and status quo regarded as correct?

Your whole attitude toward this topic and similar ones, evidenced by things such as the fact that you think anyone who supports traditional marriage is a bigot, indicates a general short-sightedness on your part.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

You're back to the same assertions and
ad hominems.

If you think describing your approach as a creative is an ad hominem (let alone plural) you have a weaker grasp of my response than you do an answer for it, which is saying something.

Kmo can at least understand and acknowledge the argument,

Do you really think someone is going to salute that inference if you keep running it up the pole? :chuckle:

I'm sure he can figure it out without your emotional string-pulling.

Which is funny given there's literally nothing emotional about my argument and yours rests on little else.

Just thought I'd give you a chance to reclaim your standing on the point of that last word...or not.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

If you think describing your approach as a creative is an ad hominem (let alone plural) you have a weaker grasp of my response than you do an answer for it, which is saying something.


Do you really think someone is going to salute that inference if you keep running it up the pole? :chuckle:


Which is funny given there's literally nothing emotional about my argument and yours rests on little else.

Just thought I'd give you a chance to reclaim your standing on the point of that last word...or not.

:e4e:

How could I take the last word without something worth responding to? :think:

Mt 12:36

 

[Granite]

Of course. Do you acknowledge that generations have made dramatic changes for the worse in this country that the previous generation and status quo regarded as correct?

Sure. Prohibition and the Missouri Compromise come to mind.

Your whole attitude toward this topic and similar ones, evidenced by things such as the fact that you think anyone who supports traditional marriage is a bigot...

Yeah, see--you keep saying that, and it's still a lie. No matter how many times you repeat it.

In any event, I can't imagine how you haven't exhausted Papa Heretic's patience yet, but if I wanted to listen to some aging windbag pontificate on the virtues of an institution he may not even personally enjoy, I can go to the nearest church. Have fun with the thread, kids.:wave2: