Autonemesis

"Subtle pro-homosexual propaganda." I love that. Of course, your fears about this insidious influence cause you to completely ignore the obvious and logical. If any of this "propaganda" causes anyone to change either way, then the constant and blatant - no, celebratory and predatory - pro-heterosexual propaganda that everyone is bombarded with day in and day out must have an overwhelming effect on most individuals, wouldn't you think? I don't know of any straights who committed suicide because they felt they had failed to turn gay, thus disappointing their parents. Do you?

A little perception of grey is there, good.

Well in the theory in your head, I guess that's so. In practice, in the world of real people, it isn't so. People marry for the sake of children, people marry for a lot of other reasons. Historically, it isn't so. Marriage, as a human cultural tradition, usually involved the male asserting or attaining dominance in one shape or another, depending on the cultural context. Marriage, I agree, is a very long-standing human tradition usually involving a man and a woman but to say that it always has been what you think it is today - or even what it actually is today - is ludicrous. Surely you realize that what marriage (or any other tradition) means is specific to a culture, a place and a time? In our time and our culture (I assume USA) it's meaning is almost so diffuse as to be specific to one couple or one family.

Just looking around at married people as a non-participant in this tradition, and knowing many of them it's clear that the ones I know are married for lots of different reasons, hardly any of them having to do with children, although about half of them have kids. I think my neck of the woods is not so different from other necks in this area to be concerned about a biased sample too much to reasonably assume that children are not the principle reason for marriage among a broader sample of people, up to and including the whole country (USA). But if you want to disabuse me of that idea, I'll entertain the attempt. It's possible I could be mistaken. I will admit that my own parents got married for the sake of a child, namely me. They were married in June, I was born in December. You do the math.

You're somebody's sock puppet, aren't you? Totalitarianist? It's really amazing how intimidated you are by effeminate men.

Mods: Is it an ad hominem to note an obvious personality trait that is relevant to the position being argued by the poster, and which exerts a plain influence on his reasoning? If it is, I'll apologize.

Viti

Why are you attaching morals and values in regards to marriage? Today it is mostly a civil and legal contract (especially among non-religious). It isn't any kind of sacred bond. I could live with and love a person and be committed to them, but without the marriage contract we would lose some legal rights.

You seem to be hitting the same crack pipe as a few others around here.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by yguy
Since selfish people tend to be morally relativistic ...

Welcome to Planet Earth.

Godot

Accusations of quote mining aren't going to get you very far.
Given that this was the quote in full: I fail to see what you mean by the "subsequent phrase".
From the post I was reading, the subsequent phrase was: as stated by NHGH.
It in no way substantiates your position.
If you were referring to the subsequent phrase of yours, it was:This too has no bearing upon your rebuttal of my point.

The only other possibility is that you were referring to the sentence fragment "far more so than the husband and wife."

So, to understand your position (as it seems to have shifted from your earlier statement):
1) marriage is ultimately about children. (but of course, it is impossible to have or want children outside of wedlock)
2) beyond procreation, marriage is acceptable so long as it involves a member of each sex. (notice I did not use gender, as gender is more of a sociological term and sex being physiological)

Do you deny that you stated that the purpose of marriage is essentially procreative? Your primary opposition to homosexual marriage is the inability to perpetrate a procreative act between two people of the same sex?
If this is so, then how is this differentiated from heterosexual couples that are incapable of (for various reasons) or even unwilling to procreate? The end result of any such union will definitely not be a zygote, which, as you stated above, is the primary purpose of marriage.
Now I've either grossly misrepresented your position (corrections of which I await with baited breath), or I've got you pegged dead to rights as a bigot with no substantial basis for your objections.

yguy

Yeah. Ain't that great?

yguy

There was no accusation, just a statement of the obvious.

In bold. Perhaps you are unaware of the difference between a phrase and a sentence.

Nope.

Not precisely; it is to encourage procreation in a stable family.

You seem to be under the impression that I think procreation is the only purpose of marriage. What I said was that it is the most important.

Loren Pechtel

How about postmenopausal women? How about marriages in which one or both partners is sterilized?

Loren Pechtel

How is value created by limiting who can have it? Marriage is about love, not who is allowed!

yguy

No doubt, if you are referring to sexually-charged advertising, sitcoms, and the like. The people behind all that are manipulative scoundrels, to put it mildly.

No. What of it? Am I to blame for homosexuals who committed suicide?

Beside the point. I'm not defending "traditional marriage" because it's traditional, but because, like democracy, it's a lousy deal until you consider the fact that it's several orders of magnitude better than any alternative.

How fortunate for those who would rejoice at the downfall of this country.

Again, I'm not concerned with the consensus view. A society in which children are generally a secondary motive for marriage cannot last.

Do you want me to be?

Dunno about that, but I certainly agree that it was amazing how the APA was intimidated by effeminate men in the early 70's.

I suppose it would be construed as an insult if I said that I expectorate in the general direction of your apology - so I won't.

PandaJoe

How does allowing gay marriages affect childbearing families in any way? You seem to have this bizarre notion that if homosexuality is accepted in a society, the homosexuals become the majority.



Just like the Communists are introducing fluoride into our water to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids?

So what exactly does this "traditional marriage" pertain, and how is it better than any other marriage?