Those goodies come regardless of marital status. The marital benefits are extended regardless of child-bearing. I know you're too smart to not see this, which leads me to believe you're flailing here...and badly. Even implying that when two atheists get married in this country, it harkens back to what some puny self-important tribe in the desert was espousing 5000 years ago really shows the lack of any good counter argument you have to present.
My wife and I have been married for six years. We don't have children, nor do we wish or intend to. Given you have shown evidence that marriage is "expected to fulfill the commandment to have children", does that mean that we are now also banned from using the word "marriage" and should henceforth only refer to our lifelong commitment to each other as a "civil union" or other state-determined terminology?
Well, regardless of what happens here, you live in the UK (edit: I assume...), so as far as we're concerned, you can call it whatever the fuck you want. :up:
Anyway, I don't think you have anything to worry about, but I haven't quite followed Hobbes' point here. Personally, I have no issue with homosexual couples or extending certain rights to them, but the impression I get is that what they, or those most outspoken in the movement, want is more than that. I have a hard time accepting the notion that there should be no line of distinction drawn between a homosexual union and a conventional one. A homosexual relationship is not the same thing as a heterosexual one and no amount of discussion will change the biological/hormonal differences. And it's difficult to respect the cavalier attitudes of many who seem to think it will. Can they call it marriage, though? Sure. It is, by definition, a marriage, that's fair enough.
I'm just going to suggest that Hobbes probably does think this way. It's less of a point and more like blurry scattershot.
of course you prefer it, because you can only counter your opposition by turning your opposition into an easily defeatable caricature rather than deal with the reality of them. it would be one thing if you called me simply a bigot, but logic isn't at the heart of your criticism and it isn't sensational enough, and doesn't evoke the emotion you are being driven by. so, you had to throw in ignorant, despite the fact that my position doesn't reflect any sort of lack of knowledge at all, unless you are going to claim that believing in a right and wrong of human sexuality equates to ignorant. I'd like t o hear your argument in that regards if that is where you are going with it. no, you are actually ignoring human psychology. you talk familial units, but ignore the fact that boys and girls growing up need the parent of their same sex for guidance in experiences that the opposite sex does not have, thus cannot provide. no man, gay or straight, can relate to the experience of a teenage girl, and likewise for a woman and a teenage boy. you're going to tell me a father can relate to his daughter during her period and menstrual cramps? sorry, doesn't work that way. and that is just the most simple example. at many points in our lives, boys need the guidance only a father can provide, and vice versa for a girl, and a same sex couple cannot provide that. you talk about familial units and psychology, but how can you do so and ignore something so basic to each. hence why a straight, monogamous relationship provides more value than a homosexual one. I know, I just said something very mean, that someone's relationship has more value than another couple's relationship. what an ignorant bigot I am because not all things are equal, and just because someone does something it doesn't mean that something must be right. does the whole world need orange slices and Capri Sun?
There is actual ignorance, and then there is willful ignorance. I chose to use the term as it applies to the latter. Play with semantics all you want, but not being able to understand that a cohesive couple makes better decisions as they pertain to their own well-being, and as a result, society at large, is willful ignorance at its best. Regardless of the child issue, which is another debate entirely, we have been speaking of the legal union between two consenting adults and its perceived benefits and detriments. Your stance that "you are right and they are wrong" is just about one of the most base arguments one can make. Why not actually address the issue and tell me exactly what detriment it is to the greater functioning of society if that union is between two people of the same sex? There is no need for you to creatively interpret my argument as I have stated it pretty plainly...and nowhere in there did I say anything about raising children, so throw that stack of straw away and try again. Allowing same-sex couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples has no societal drawbacks, save for ignorant bigoted whining, and all the advantages as I have previously stated. It is psychological fact that people in a committed relationship make less selfish decisions and are more apt to consider the full weight of the consequences of their actions. This in turn fosters a better society in which to live. It's unfortunate that your delicate sensibilities don't allow you to see that, but as we move forward in time and the world collective starts to look outside of its boxes, you will see that ancient superstitions and the need to feel better about yourself by putting down those around who are different are what is truly detrimental to the evolution of our species.
By this logic, you should also ban single parent families. People who have children must be forced to live together until the child turns 18, and those who are widowed must be made to re-marry as a matter of priority for the good of the child. There is no more reason why a child growing up in a same-sex home should grow up imbalanced or incomplete than a child growing up in a single parent home.
Your argument implies there is no overlap between the two concepts, and that they must be completely distinct. this is not accurate - the religious view of marriage informs the state's civil definition of it. This is not the least bit strange or limited to this issue. The penal code is full of similar elements that involve the same kind of overlapping concepts. Thou shalt not kill, for example, corresponds to laws against murder. I know binary thinking is very appealing to people who want simple solutions, but the real world is a bit more complex than that.
To your credit you offer arguments why as a policy matter the government should consider granting some kind of legal status to gay unions, but you really did not counter Blue's argument that society finds value in straight unions. I agree with his point that given the differences between men and women, along with the point i made earlier that children raised in a family benefit from having role models from both sexes, that society DOES have a rational basis for valuing marriage as between a man and a woman. Your arguments are plausible, although imo they do not come near requring society to accept gay marriage as equal to straight marriage. Perhaps some middle ground will adequately cover your points, such as recognized civil unions and that sort of thing. But the main point regarding your arguments is that they really are not ones that lead to constitutionally required results of forcing the acceptance of gay marriage on equal protection grounds, instead being ones that a legislature perhaps should consider, but should not be required to accept.
Quite obviously you are ignoring the child tax credit, which DOES give a benefit to couples having children that childless couples do not receive.
This has been answered before. There is nothing irrational about the state creating the institution of marriage as available to couples wishing to enter into it who, for the most part if not in every case, in fact do have children and proceed to raise them. Your point is a red herring.
So you are basically saying that I should have been taken away from my single mother and placed with a married hetero couple.
there is no ignorance at all in this matter, because I'm not ignoring anything. and there is nothing about my argument that is dependent upon semantics. seems you just found a new word and are eager to use it, even though it doesn't apply. I'm not attempting to confuse your argument by using a different word. your argument, on the other hand, is ignorant willfully, because you simply only want to acknowledge the elements that defend your position but completely ignore the additional elements that dispute it. no, the children become relevant when you claim same sex couples are equal to straight couples in value. they aren't, because they don't create the complete familial experience. adding children doesn't make my argument a straw man, it simply applies your argument to a broader situation. seems ignorance is causing confusion on your part about what that is. simply because you don't want to accept that doesn't make the argument a straw man, because I am not reframing your argument in a biased way. I presented an additional element, children, that revealed they aren't. it is ignorant or dishonest to ignore that. you see, your argument is actually bigger than you want to acknowledge because to do so would force you to admit its flaws.
see, this is a straw man. perhaps you should start thinking logically about what I said, and nowhere did I advocate taking children away as part of the issue. well done. we are talking about value, and there is no doubt that married couples provide a more complete experience than a single parent, and are thus provide more value. perhaps if you weren't so emotional you could see that simple premise.
We have been having a mostly civil discussion here for the last couple of days, and your relatively harsh and aggressive tone tempts me to wonder why seeem to take this issue so personally. But we can proceed on the merits despite that temptation. Again, that there is a purported benefit to society of recognizing committed gay relationships may in fact be the case, but that does not require society to label such arrangements with the same term and equal treatment as straight marriages. Nor does consideration of such a benefit, even if it exists, require a constitutionally imposed outcome contrary to the laws adopted by the legislature. You are making a policy argument, which is fine, but only takes you so far. Your next point alleges that there are no drawbacks to allowing the same benefits to gay unions as to straight marriages. This is defective in two respects. First of all it is factually incorrect. If society with a rational basis (as I believe Blue's argument provides) determines that straight marriages have benefits to society that are (even if minimally) not found in gay unions, then whatever benefits given to gay unions will, by definition, have less beneficial effect to society as a whole. But the second objetion is more significant. The benefits you describe have a cost that either increases as benefits are extended to gay unions, adding to the overall cost of extending such benefit, or the amount of benefit extended each straight marriage must be lessened in order to avoid raising the overall cost of such extension. Other than these two obvious counter arguments, there is also the fact, although this is concededly a more general and diffuse point, that society wants to label straight relationships with the term marriage to honor it with a level of veneration that it does not choose to accord gay unions. Again, I think it has a rational basis for doing so which is defeated if the term is used to apply to gay unions which society does not think should be equally venerated. Regarding your more general point, by focusing on the supposed benefits of having gays in committed unions, you completely ignore the value to society of having children born and raised into families headed by members of both sexes. You may disagree all you want that there is any such benefit. I think that there is should be obvious, and this has been previously described by Blue, and it is not to your credit that you ignore his point. It should be obvious that a child of the sex opposite to his same sex parents will lack something at some point, and this is not an insignificant point. The bottom line is society has the right to see straight marriages as superior unions for the important societal purpose of raising children. This is a conclusion that does not require bigotry to reach it. Your bleating about bigotry is not helpful to your argument, and does not defeat this point.
Exactly. He wants to argue the benefits to society of strengthened gay unions. The issue is not limited to the strength of couple's relationships. Society has an interest in how children are raised. Adding that element provides the rational basis for distinguishing between straight marriages and gay unions, which is why as a rhetorical device he ignores it.
That's because you're an idiot. And given you impart that thought because of my fairly rightward leanings, that makes you a bigot as well. And someone whose bigotry precludes him from understanding clearly the Libertarian/Conservative spectrum.
