The Destruction of Straightness

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

so now you're against single parents, too? or is the legality of single parent families another exception?

Checkmate.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The answer is twofold. Noting that a gay union will not produce offspring we then ask why do they needed to enter into the institution of marriage is the first place? Note that I say this in light of my earlier point in this post that starts with "I can agree with" several paragraphs up. Secondly, once marriage is redefined the basis for defending it is lost. We already accept certain restrictions on marriage (blood-relatives, group marriage, etc.), but those restrictions are built off the notion that they are prohibited as unaligned with the specific policy goal of responsible child rearing. Note that "unaligned with" is NOT the same as "opposed to."

Allowing gay marriage would be a relatively minor change, but the effects would be legally far reaching as it would be a complete concession that the definition is subject to change. As I've already said several times, the gay marriage debate is really only one microcosm in the overall discussion on the integrity and preservation of marriage as a social institution. This is a wide discussion which includes many related issues such as no-fault divorce, polygamy, and even multiple-parenthood (see my original post for a link on SB 1476).

Redefining marriage to be more inclusive sets up a domino effect that will have legal ramifications because it redefines existing legal structures, titles, and inherent rights.

No one is seriously arguing that some rights should not exist, such as the ability to have a legally recognized partnership that allows things like inheritance, (medical) power of attorney, and so on. Marriage however, is accompanied by those powers; it does not concern them. That is the locus of the controversy; you cannot make it into something it is not.

as to your first concern, modern society provides for the adoption of children for the non-child bearing. whereas romance between a man and woman was once the sole impetus for parenthood, it is not any longer. homosexuals, both single and in relationships, can and do adopt children with some degree of frequency.

marriage is beneficial to society for all the reasons you have enumerated. for sake of argument, i will even concede the dubious notion that, on the aggregate, results would improve if every born child were the product of a married man and woman. but that is clearly and demonstrably not the case. many children are born into unstable and dangerous circumstances. others still are born into stability and thrust into instability as their parents succumb to tragedy. these children are funneled into a system of adoption.

the united states has more needy children in undesirable living situations than quality environments to place them in. as such, societal goals should focus not only on promoting a nuclear family that can produce and provide for its own children. society should also promote the formation of as many stable, enduring family units as possible, with an eye toward improving the lots of adopted children and children placed within legal guardianships. in short, a stable family unit is a societal benefit worth promotion, whether or not that family unit is traditionally fertile. the bounds of fertility are no longer a significant obstacle to child rearing.

as to your second concern, i find it disingenuous. there is no slippery slope. a revision of the definition of marriage to include a desirable, comparable, common, but heretofore taboo relationship does not invite further expansion unless that further expansion is similarly beneficial to society. each on its own merits. the examples you are raising are either exceptionally rare, non-beneficial (or detrimental) to society, or materially different from an expansion to include homosexual relationships. polygamy involves a slew of issues that would subvert the intended societal benefits of marriage. to be brief, it would almost certainly increase the number of single parent households while decreasing paternal investment in child rearing. incest is unhealthy for the child. cases of intended 3-person marriage are exceptionally rare.

[Hailto]

Originally Posted by Kagatob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Checkmate.

Enjoy your Taco's pal.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

a revision of the definition of marriage to include a desirable, comparable, common, but heretofore taboo relationship does not invite further expansion unless that further expansion is similarly beneficial to society.

i'm pretty sure marriage already meets this definition, even without any revisions

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

so now you're against single parents, too? or is the legality of single parent families another exception?

Of course not. Please reread my earlier posts concerning the ability of a government to promote, permit, or prohibit. Single parenthood is a consequence many different scenarios. At no point is anyone "against" single parents. Should the prevalence of single parenthood be discouraged through a regime that promotes the nuclear family? Absolutely, this is precisely was the marriage integrity movement is all about. (See earlier points on no fault divorce, etc.)

Also, please reread my previous post explaining the "exception" language you have taken issue with. I have clarified and elaborated upon what I wrote to address your concern.

Single parenthood is permitted, but not promoted by the government (and especially not prohibited). It is an unfortunate occurrence that exists, but it would be completely disingenuous to ignore that it exists.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i'm pretty sure marriage already meets this definition, even without any revisions

Shut the fuck up with your wrong definitions buddy.

And fuck single parents? Don't like my opinion, fuck you also.

inb4 christian bigot.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Shut the fuck up with your wrong definitions buddy.

And fuck single parents? Don't like my opinion, fuck you also.

inb4 christian bigot.

I think you may find more success if you rebutted the opposition with a bit more thought and a bit less FOAD.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Shut the fuck up with your wrong definitions buddy.

And fuck single parents? Don't like my opinion, fuck you also.

inb4 christian bigot.

angry

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think you may find more success if you rebutted the opposition with a bit more thought and a bit less FOAD.

Man, it isn't worth it. There has been essentially several thread like this the past couple weeks with the same shit being spewed back and forth. Most I would like to point out, with no credible sources and anything from most people to consider a credible source in this argument is wikipedia, half the time to a page that isn't even relevant. I have come to a conclusion though from all of this. Atheists are stupid.

oh and

2013, deal with it.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Of course not. Please reread my earlier posts concerning the ability of a government to promote, permit, or prohibit. Single parenthood is a consequence many different scenarios. At no point is anyone "against" single parents. Should the prevalence of single parenthood be discouraged through a regime that promotes the nuclear family? Absolutely, this is precisely was the marriage integrity movement is all about. (See earlier points on no fault divorce, etc.)

Also, please reread my previous post explaining the "exception" language you have taken issue with. I have clarified and elaborated upon what I wrote to address your concern.

Single parenthood is permitted, but not promoted by the government (and especially not prohibited). It is an unfortunate occurrence that exists, but it would be completely disingenuous to ignore that it exists.

let me be honest with you, nobody is going to reread your posts. your posts are kind of rambly and very disjointed. there's zero flow in logic from one point to the next.

also, you try to pass a lot of opinion off as fact. a lot.

so you should feel blessed that i obliged you the first time, and if you feel that you didn't get the point across the first time, the passive aggressive "you can't read" doesn't help your stance.