Music For Marriage Equality Campaign

[wenglund]

We are at a state of humanity where the population explosion is going to threaten the survival of the world.

Before buying into the recycled over-population and population-explosion nonsense of the 70's, please realize that the current rate of growth--births to death--in the U.S. is at the paltry level of .6% (see HERE), and declining.

And, given that the long-term survival of our republic and the health of our economy, as well as the longevity of certain government programs (like Social Security and Medicare), are strongly dependent upon population maintenance if not also growth, your tangential point is not well taken.

Besides, we aren't just talking about the here-and-now, but also the past and future. Marital laws were first instituted back in the time of vast open plains and prairies.

Furthermore, even were we to buy your recycled nonsense, it would only give us cause to get the government out of heterosexual marriages, and doesn't give reason for the government to irrationally get into SSM.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 8, 2012 by wenglund

[california boy]

Of course, practicality advises that we as a nation prioritize and pick our battles.

However, your question incorrectly presuppose that the SSM debate is about restricting peoples rights.

So you don't think that you have a right to get married? If it is not a fundamental right for gay couples, how can it be a fundamental right for married couples?

Edited October 8, 2012 by california boy

[california boy]

First of all, "marriage equality" is a farcical catch-phrase that perpetuates many of the misnomers of gay propaganda. Gay activists aren't advocating for marriage equality per se. Instead, they want the government to discriminate in their favor, and arbitrarily and capriciously included their sinful sexual relationships under the legal definition of marriage--whether it make sense to do so or not (see below).

Gays want the government to discriminate in their favor by asking for marriage equality??????????????? Pretzel logic.

And, in the most fundamental sense, it is physically impossible for so-called marriages of same-sex couples to be equal with those of heterosexual couples since the same-sex couple can't biologically produce their own families.

Couples who can not have children should by law not be allowed to marry. Couples who adopt should not by law be allowed to marry. Is this really any rational for anyone to use to deny gay couples who can not have children or adopt to not allow marriage? We have heard this tired argument for years now. You simply are denying marriage to gays because you want to discriminate against them. There is no requirement for any marriage to have children. There is no law that prevents those that want to adopt from being married. This argument only is used if the couple is gay. It is discrimination. Period. You have yet to answer the question "how is it better for a child adopted by a gay couple to not allow that couple to marry?"

In a way, though, you are right. Why should we care what people wish to call themselves and their relationships? We shouldn't. If people want to consider themselves a cars, or trees, or planets, or Jello salad, or pretend their relationships as glue, or peanut butter, or marriage, or whatever, what is that to us? It is their business.

Wade, we are talking about consenting adults here, not cars, trees, planets or jello salad.

However, that isn't what the SSM issue is about. Gay advocates are going beyond asking us to let them call themselves whatever they want, to also asking us to call them whatever they want.

And, again, you are looking at this issue exactly backwards on several levels. It might help you to understand why our government got into the heterosexual marriage business to begin with. It wasn't with the intent to let heterosexual call themselves "married" since they were already doing so by way of religious and cultural ceremonies. Instead, our government got involved in heterosexual marriage for the same principle reason it got involved in discriminatory licensing of businesses, doctors, lawyers, teachers, pilots, auto drivers, etc., and the same principle reason it has enacted most all legislation--i.e. in terms of cost/benefit, it was in the people's interest to do so.

Our government thought it worthwhile to regulate and promote (via government sanction) heterosexual marriage because even given the enormous costs of the ongoing promotion, it was determined that the benefits in so doing exceeded the costs. It was deemed in the people's interest for the government to encourage legally solemizing the only natural type of pro-creative relationship and to promote the ideal fundamental structure of society--i.e the two-biological-parent family.

It makes sense, then, if gay advocates wish to go beyond calling themselves "married," to arbitrarily having the government and people call them "married," that they likewise demonstrate that it is in the people's interest to do so. They need to demonstrate that the huge cost incurred from extending legal marriage to homosexual couple is surmounted by the benefits derived from so doing. As indicated previously, they haven't made their case because the opposite is likely true--the cost far outweigh the benefits.

In other words, it is actually against the people's interest for the government to incur the cost of promoting and encouraging non-reproductive, devolutionary, delitarious (in various ways), sinful, sexual relationships and non-ideal familial structures. Doing so would be contrary to sound reason.

Does this help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I get that you are extremely prejudice against gay people and have this agenda to make sure they are not treated equally under the law. All of the goverment reasons for encouraging marriage apply to anyone wishing to marry. Just because you are gay does not change the value of stable relationships and children being brought up in homes where that relationship is formalized and sanctioned by the government. Your rational is only exposing that you feel gay families should be treated differently than straight families that are in the exact same position. Gay families with adopted children are should have the same government support and protection as straight families who have adopted children. Gay couples who do not have children should have the same government support and protection as straight couples who do not have children. This whole rational in your mind must make you feel better about your ability to discriminate against gay families. They are hollow arguments used to rationalize discrimination against gays.

If you have a point to make that gay couples are not entitled to the same government benefits, then answer the question. How is it better for an adopted child or a child by a previous marriage in a gay relationship better off by not allowing their parents to marry.

[wenglund]

And your response presupposes that marriage is a fundamental right without showing that it actually *is* a fundamental right (or a right at all).

In Loving v Virginia, the Supreme Court designated marriage (defined as between a man and a woman) to be "a basic civil right that is fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

So you don't think that you have a right to get married?

The Supreme Court says that I do.

If it is not a fundamental right for gay couples, how can it be a fundamental right for married couples?

The Supreme Court designated traditional marriage to be a fundamental right because it is "fundamental to our very existence and survival." (see the link in the previous post) It is also a basic civil right because of its long legal tradition. (ibid) Neither of these reasons apply to SSM.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[RobertAC]

In Loving v Virginia, the Supreme Court designated marriage (defined as between a man and a woman) to be "a basic civil right that is fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It would seem this cuts both ways, Wade. In fact, it cuts many ways.

There is no language in the U.S. Constitution that says that there is a right to marry, or a right to have sex, or a right to an abortion, or various other rights that have developed within the last 50 years. If I recall correctly, the court has generally developed this right under the "broad penumbra" of several amendments to the Constitution.

That is not to say that a lot of good has come out of these lines of cases. However, some would also argue that a lot of bad has come out of them too.

If marriage is a fundamental right, then one could reasonably say that gay marriage is a right. One might also say that plural marriage between consenting adults is also a right.

Personally, I have never believed that the Supreme Court is going to go insane one day and make law that sounds like it came out of the court of Caligula, but I am aware that the basis for these rights can get a wee bit fuzzy.

[wenglund]

Gays want the government to discriminate in their favor by asking for marriage equality??????????????? Pretzel logic.

No. Gays are arbitrarily and inanely asking the government to discriminate in their favor in order to get the government's stamp of approval for their non-reproductive, devolutionary, deleterious (in various ways), sinful, sexual relationships and non-ideal familial structures. Again, the notion of "marriage equality" is a propagandistic farce.

Couples who can not have children should by law not be allowed to marry.

I strenuously disagree. What reasoning do you have to support this assertion?

Couples who adopt should not by law be allowed to marry.

I strenuously disagree. What reasoning do you have to support this assertion?

Is this really any rational for anyone to use to deny gay couples who can not have children or adopt to not allow marriage?

No....nor is it the rationale that I put forward.

We have heard this tired argument for years now.

I know. It is a straw man that is frequently propped up by gay propagandists--as witnessed by you bringing it up here.

You simply are denying marriage to gays because you want to discriminate against them.

This is a demonstrably false accusation.

There is no requirement for any marriage to have children.

There doesn't need to be a requirement. You are completely missing the point (see below).

There is no law that prevents those that want to adopt from being married.

I didn't speak to the issue of adoption.

This argument only is used if the couple is gay. It is discrimination. Period.

I haven't used this argument.

You have yet to answer the question "how is it better for a child adopted by a gay couple to not allow that couple to marry?"

If it were relevant to the points that I have actually made, then I would address it. It isn't.

Wade, we are talking about consenting adults here, not cars, trees, planets or jello salad.

You clearly missed the point--which, by the way, had entirely nothing to do with consent.

I get that you are extremely prejudice against gay people and have this agenda to make sure they are not treated equally under the law.

This is a demonstrably false ad hominem attack that is entirely unwarranted, though expected from gay propagandists who evidently are incapable of rationally responding to compelling reason.

All of the government reasons for encouraging marriage apply to anyone wishing to marry.

That is correct--at least under the longstanding legal definition of marriage. The reasoning doesn't apply to the recent attempts to warp the definition, and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.

Just because you are gay does not change the value of stable relationships and children being brought up in homes where that relationship is formalized and sanctioned by the government. Your rational is only exposing that you feel gay families should be treated differently than straight families that are in the exact same position. Gay families with adopted children are should have the same government support and protection as straight families who have adopted children. Gay couples who do not have children should have the same government support and protection as straight couples who do not have children. This whole rational in your mind must make you feel better about your ability to discriminate against gay families. They are hollow arguments used to rationalize discrimination against gays. If you have a point to make that gay couples are not entitled to the same government benefits, then answer the question. How is it better for an adopted child or a child by a previous marriage in a gay relationship better off by not allowing their parents to marry.

You clearly have an inaccurate perception of the constitutional legal arguments that I have parroted on this thread. I am not talking about government support or entitlement programs. Those are already available to gay couples raising kids--particularly in states, like California, where there are legal domestic partnerships. Or, at the very least, they are matters that logically should be addressed in legislation that has nothing to do with marriage, but rather with child health and welfare.

Instead, what I am talking about is governmental sanction and incentive for heterosexual couples to formally enter a long-term committed relationship rather than conceiving and raising their biological children out of wedlock (something the government doesn't have to worry about with same-sex couples), and to promote the ideal family structure. Do you not understand the obvious difference?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 8, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

It would seem this cuts both ways, Wade. In fact, it cuts many ways.

I am not sure what two or many ways you think it cuts, but perhaps you can go beyond bald assertions and explain what you mean.

There is no language in the U.S. Constitution that says that there is a right to marry, or a right to have sex, or a right to an abortion, or various other rights that have developed within the last 50 years.

I am not sure why you think something needs to be in the Constitution in order for it to be a right. It doesn't--particularly those rights that are conferred by virtue of federal and state laws. For example, motor vehicle laws confer the right to legally drive, and this to qualified citizens, and it denies that conferred right to those who don't qualify. This right is conferred even though the Constitution doesnt say anything about the right to drive.

The same is true for marriage (defined as between a man and a woman). State governments have for centuries conferred the right of legal marriage to qualified couples, and they have denied that right to those that don't. Because this right has been conferred for centuries, and because it is deemed fundamental to our survival and existence as a people, the Court has considered it a basic civil right.

If I recall correctly, the court has generally developed this right under the "broad penumbra" of several amendments to the Constitution.

As I understand things, your recollection is incorrect. You are free to attempt to demonstrate otherwise.

If marriage is a fundamental right, then one could reasonably say that gay marriage is a right.

Gay marriage is only a recently conferred right in those states where SSM has been legalized. It is far from being a fundamental or civil right.

One might also say that plural marriage between consenting adults is also a right.

This is only true under those governments that have conferred this right by making plural marriage legal.

Personally, I have never believed that the Supreme Court is going to go insane one day and make law that sounds like it came out of the court of Caligula, but I am aware that the basis for these rights can get a wee bit fuzzy.

To the uniformed mind, there is much that may seem more than a wee bit fuzzy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 9, 2012 by wenglund

[Bikeemikey]

Those are already available to gay couples raising kids--particularly in states, like California, where there are legal domestic partnerships. Or, at the very least, they are matters that logically should be addressed in legislation that has nothing to do with marriage, but rather with child health and welfare.

Instead, what I am talking about is governmental sanction and incentive for heterosexual couples to formally enter a long-term committed relationship rather than conceiving and raising their biological children out of wedlock (something the government doesn't have to worry about with same-sex couples), and to promote the ideal family structure. Do you not understand the obvious difference?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You have suggested that many of the issues attempting to be resolved by promoting gay marriage can be resolved by legislation that has nothing to do with "marriage".

Why not also resolve the question of incentive for hetrosexual couples through legislation that has nothing to do with marriage?

In fact, your concern of incentives can be managed via legislation regardless of who gets married. Or am I missing something?

I have no issue with the govt. legislating/incentivizing to produce a stable, better, more educated, less criminal etc etc next generation... i just fail to see how the govt. being involved in the restriction of a religious ceremony to certain portions of the community reaches this objective.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[wenglund]

You have suggested that many of the issues attempting to be resolved by promoting gay marriage can be resolved by legislation that has nothing to do with "marriage".

Why not also resolve the question of incentive for hetrosexual couples through legislation that has nothing to do with marriage?

Huh? You have it exactly backwards. As explained, with regards to heterosexual couples, the governmental incentive is for them TO GET MARRIED and TO STAY MARRIED. In other words, in some respects, the incentive has everything to do with marriage. Come on Bikeemikey, please think things through a little more carefully before posting.

In fact, your concern of incentives can be managed via legislation regardless of who gets married. Or am I missing something?

Clearly, you are missing the key point.

I have no issue with the govt. legislating/incentivizing to produce a stable, better, more educated, less criminal etc etc next generation... i just fail to see how the govt. being involved in the restriction of a religious ceremony to certain portions of the community reaches this objective.

You evidently aren't grasping what I have said. The government's strategy for achieving the aforementioned objectives hasn't been to restrict religious ceremonies to a certain portion of the community. Rather, it has been, IN PART, to use government sanctions and benefits to encourage pro-creative relationships to enter into formal and lasting commitments as well as to promote the ideal familial structure, and this because from a cost/benefit analysis, it is in the people's interest to do so--whether you see it that way or not. Many a legislature and judiciary have seen it that way throughout the years. You may not realize this (perhaps because of all the obfuscation created by gay propaganda), but I have simply been summarizing what legislatures and the judiciary have argued over the years.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 9, 2012 by wenglund

[Bikeemikey]

Huh? You have it exactly backwards. As explained, with regards to heterosexual couples, the governmental incentive is for them TO GET MARRIED and TO STAY MARRIED. In other words, in some respects, the incentive has everything to do with marriage. Come on Bikeemikey, please think things through a little more carefully before posting.

Clearly, you are missing the key point.

You evidently aren't grasping what I have said. The government's strategy for achieving the aforementioned objectives hasn't been to restrict religious ceremonies to a certain portion of the community. Rather, it has been, IN PART, to use government sanctions and benefits to encourage pro-creative relationships to enter into formal and lasting commitments as well as to promote the ideal familial structure, and this because from a cost/benefit analysis, it is in the people's interest to do so--whether you see it that way or not. Many a legislature and judiciary have seen it that way throughout the years. You may not realize this (perhaps because of all the obfuscation created by gay propaganda), but I have simply been summarizing what legislatures and the judiciary have argued over the years.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here is what I understand you to be saying:

The govt. is incentivizing private citizens to adopt a religious ceremony (in order to create a more stabile swociety) in exchange for govt provided social/fiscal advantage whilst similtaneously restricting the religious freedoms of many relgious groups by telling them they are not able to provide this same religious ceremonies to those their relgious beliefs dictate ought be eligible.

Why not do exactly the same thing by incentiving the outcomes produced by successful marriage relationships rather than incentivizing both the good and the bad marriages? It seems the present process is rather inefficient, does it not?

Why not provide tax status based on high school performance, college attendance, arrest record of ones children etc? Good marriages are good for society in virtue of the outcomes they produce.

Rather than running an (terribly ineffective) incentive system that trumples on relgious and personal freedoms, with no direct objective stated, instead simply run a nice transparent one that explains what it is looking for?

Let marriage be a religious ceremony and not a govt incentive system!

Edited October 9, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[california boy]

Instead, what I am talking about is governmental sanction and incentive for heterosexual couples to formally enter a long-term committed relationship rather than conceiving and raising their biological children out of wedlock (something the government doesn't have to worry about with same-sex couples), and to promote the ideal family structure. Do you not understand the obvious difference?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You seem to think that the government is only concerned with biological children yet you agree that adopted children and couples that do not have children should be allowed to marry. UNLESS THEY ARE GAY. Then you think all the reasons for government support should be dismissed and not allowed. And you self righteously say you have no prejudice against gays. Yeah right.

[wenglund]

You seem to think that the government is only concerned with biological children...

Wrong. My comments were specific to the rationale for marriage, and can't logically be interpreted as negating government policies as a whole. In fact, I explicitly mentioned that governments may express their concern for all children via child health and welfare programs. Please stop propping up these straw men and falsely putting words into my mouth.

yet you agree that adopted children and couples that do not have children should be allowed to marry. UNLESS THEY ARE GAY.

Wrong again. As intimated earlier, adoption isn't a controlling factor, one way or another, for why the government got into the marriage business. It isn't a reason to allow or disallow marriages regardless of sexual orientation. And, besides, gay people can get married (as defined between a man and a woman), whether they adopt or not. In fact, you and Daniel have done so, yourselves. Please stop propping up these straw men and falsely putting words into my mouth.

Then you think all the reasons for government support should be dismissed and not allowed.

Wrong. (See above)

And you self righteously say you have no prejudice against gays.

Wrong. My arguments have been rational and reasonable, and not self-righteous. My arguments have also been specific to the rationale for governments getting into the marriage business, and not generally to gay behavior, let alone to gays, themselves. Again, your ad hominem attack is false and unwarranted and the basest form of propaganda.

Yeah right.

No, you got it all wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Here is what I understand you to be saying:

The govt. is incentivizing private citizens to adopt a religious ceremony (in order to create a more stabile swociety) in exchange for govt provided social/fiscal advantage whilst similtaneously restricting the religious freedoms of many relgious groups by telling them they are not able to provide this same religious ceremonies to those their relgious beliefs dictate ought be eligible.

I am not sure how you got this from what I have said since I took great pains to correct several of the mistakes you are here repeating.

Let me try one more time, though, to set forth and explain in more detail the primary argument that has not only been made by me here, but which has also been made during various legislative hearings prior to enacting marital laws, and also the argument that has been made or acknowledged in various judicial rulings on marital laws.

However, before explaining the argument, let me correct at least two of the false perception about marital laws expressed in the quoted portion of your post above. First, marital laws aren't about adopting religious or secular ceremonies. Rather, they are about licensing who can or can't legally be married by whatever marriage ceremony (secular or religious). Besides, from my reading of history, governments got into the marriage business prior to Christian religions getting formally into the same.

And, second, these laws aren't about restricting religious freedom (per se or otherwise), but about restricting governmental sanctions/licensing of marriages.

There are at least three premises upon which the argument rests for governments licensing and regulating marriages. Each of these premises have a secular and religious basis. I will describe both.

And, each of these premises factor into the cost/benefit equation for determining whether it is in the people's interest for the government to get into the marriage licensing business and/or encouraging the familial ideal.

I will address each premise separately in the next several post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 9, 2012 by wenglund

[Bikeemikey]

I am not sure how you got this from what I have said since I took great pains to correct several of the mistakes you here repeating.

Let me try one more time, though, to set forth and explain in more detail the primary argument that has not only been made by me here, but which has also been made during various legislative hearings prior to enacting marital laws, and also the argument that has been made or acknowledged in various judicial rulings on marital laws.

However, before explaining the argument, let me correct at least two of the false perception about marital laws expressed in the quoted portion of your post above. First, marital laws aren't about adopting religious or secular ceremonies. Rather, they are about licensing who can or can't legally be married by whatever marriage ceremony (secular or religious). Besides, from my reading of history, governments got into the marriage business prior to Christian religions getting formally into the same.

And, second, these laws aren't about restricting religious freedom (per se or otherwise), but about restricting governmental sanctions/licensing of marriages.

There are at least three premises upon which the argument rests for governments licensing and regulating marriages. Each of these premises have a secular and religious basis. I will describe both.

And, each of these premises factor into the cost/benefit equation for determining whether it is in the people's interest for the government to get into the marriage licensing business and/or encouraging the familial ideal.

I will address each premise separately in the next several post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks Wade. Looking forward to it.

[wenglund]

Premise #1.

A. Secular. Procreation is fundamental to the existence and survival and evolution of a people. Procreation, then, provides a vital benefit to society, and as such, it is in the people's interest for governments to encourage procreative relationships.

B. Religious. God has commanded mankind to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. And, it is for this reason that a man and a woman leave their fathers and mothers and cleave unto each other, and they twain become one flesh.

As you can see, this first premise in the argument for governments getting into the marriage business, doesn't pertain to homosexual relationships or any other traditionally non-procreative relationships (such as friendships, attorney-client, doctor-patient, teacher-student, public servant and private citizen, business, siblings, child-parent, child-grandparent, etc.), and this because they aren't typically procreative. These traditionally non-procreative relationships don't provide the critical benefit of, and aren't fundamental to, the existence and survival and evolution of a people--though in some respects some of these non-procreative relationships may be useful to the existence and survival and evolution of a people. (Homosexual relationships are neither)

In this respect, then, it doesn't make sense to extend marriage to homosexuals or these other non-procreative relationships since they don't provide the procreative benefit to off-set the cost in so doing. In this respect, it is not in the people's interest for the government to arbitrarily and capriciously promote one or more of these non-procreative relationship by way of legal marriage, though it may be in the people's interest to promote some of these non-procreative relationships in other ways that do make sense--like via business and professional licensing and contract law and other laws specific to the relationship, such as child health and welfare laws.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 9, 2012 by wenglund

[Bikeemikey]

Premise #1.

A. Secular. Procreation is fundamental to the existence and survival and evolution of a people. Procreation, then, provides a vital benefit to society, and as such, it is in the people's interest for governments to encourage procreative relationships.

B. Religious. God has commanded mankind to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. And, it is for this reason that a man and a woman leave their fathers and mothers and cleave unto each other, and they twain become one flesh.

As you can see, this first premise in the argument for governments getting into the marriage business, doesn't pertain to homosexual relationships or any other traditionally non-procreative relationships (such as friendships, attorney-client, doctor-patient, teacher-student, public servant and private citizen, business, siblings, child-parent, child-grandparent, etc.), and this because they aren't typically procreative. These traditionally non-procreative relationships don't provide the critical benefit of, and aren't fundamental to, the existence and survival and evolution of a people.

In this respect, then, it doesn't make sense to extend marriage to homosexuals or these other non-procreative relationships since they don't provide the procreative benefit to off-set the cost in so doing. In this respect, it is not in the people's interest for the government to arbitrarily and capriciously promote one or more of these non-procreative relationship by way of legal marriage, though it may be in the people's interest to promote some of these non-procreative relationships in other ways that do make sense--like via business and professional licensing and contract law and other laws specific to the relationship, such as child health and welfare laws.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What you are saying here makes perfect sense if you remove the term marriage and replace it with incentives. Hopefully you will address the nececcity of the incentive being marriage in the Govt context in following posts.

I have no issue with the govt. incentivizing pro-creation. My concern is the use of a religious ceremony to do this. Especially when it is not that case that all religious groups would share the definition you have cited related to marriage in the religious context and they should have the right to perform a marriage according to the dictates of their own religious tradition.

If you are saying that "all" churches can conduct marriages according to their own tradition they just can not issue a formal document from the govt. endorsing the action then I am not sure I have an issue with this either. I just think it would be better for the govt. to avoid using the term, phrase or tradition of marriage at all and instead appropriately name the govt. contract as a relationship contract. I also am not sure why the govt. should incentivize the relationship union itself, rather I think incentivizing the product of said relationships would make more sense.

[california boy]

Wrong again. As intimated earlier, adoption isn't a controlling factor, one way or another, for why the government got into the marriage business. It isn't a reason to allow or disallow marriages regardless of sexual orientation. And, besides, gay people can get married (as defined between a man and a woman), whether they adopt or not. In fact, you and Daniel have done so, yourselves. Please stop propping up these straw men and falsely putting words into my mouth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If you are now saying that it isn't a reaon to allow or disallow marriages regardless of sexual orientation, then I am in complete agreement. Evidently I misunderstood your premise. I thought you were making a case against gay marriage. This is the first time I have ever seen you agree that procreation is not a valid argument against gay marriage. YEAH.

Is all gay marriage advocated are asking for is the exact same rights as other non procreation marriages.

[wenglund]

Premise #2:

A. Secular. While procreation is fundamental to the existence and survival of a people, it may also become quite burdensome to the people if engaged in chaotically and irresponsibly. If men are going around indiscriminately impregnating women and abandoning them, this can have a significant negative impact on the people by burdening them with the responsibility of the illegitimate and abandoned procreations--as witnessed to within certain black communities. And, if women are sleeping around with a variety of men and getting pregnant, then prior to the advent of DNA tests, it would be difficult to establish paternity, which can burden the courts with issues of property rights and inheritances, etc.

There are various other significant societal and governmental costs arising from chaotic and irresponsible procreative relationships that I could go on to numerate--costs not just to the participants (like the spread of venereal diseases), but more important the costs to the children resulting from chaotic and irresponsible procreative relationships.

However, the examples already provided should suffice for making the point that because of the huge costs to the people, it is in their interest for the government to not just encourage procreative relationships (as mentioned in Premise #1), but also encourage formally committed and long-term procreative relationships. This they have done by legalizing marriage (defined as between a man and a woman) and attaching various governmental incentive to marriage.

B. Religious. While God has commanded us to multiply and replenish the earth, he has also made us responsible for and stewards over our pro-creations, and he has set forth a system of morals and spiritual laws intended to encourage responsible procreation and to prevent enormous physical and spiritual costs from irresponsible sexual relations--some of which were numerated above. These divine laws have at their very core formal covenants between the man and the woman and before God--that which is bound on earth being bound in heaven, and whatsoever God has joined together, let no man put asunder. Simply put, in the eyes of God and his disciples, procreative sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage, and more particularly procreative sexual relations that violate the bonds of marriage, are serious sins with serious consequences. Only procreative sexual relations are righteous and sacred and appropriate and godly when interred into under the divine covenant of marriage. Only covenant-based procreative relationships are to be encouraged.

Again, as you may see, the second premise in the argument for governments getting into the marriage business, doesn't pertain to homosexual relationships since they aren't by nature procreative. Chaotic and irresponsible homosexual relationships don't pose the same potential enormous costs to societies and governments as chaotic and irresponsible procreative relationships, and thus it isn't in the people's interest for governments to extend the cost-saving benefit of legal marriage to any other relationship than procreative.

This is not to say that homosexual relationships (irresponsible or otherwise) don't pose their own unique set of enormous costs to societies and governments. They do. However, the case has yet to be reasonably made that these unique costs will be sufficiently ameliorated, if at all, through arbitrarily and capriciously legalizing SSM, and it may even reasonably be argued to the contrary. In other words, it isn't in the peoples interest to legalize SSM, and may be in their interest to regulate homosexuality altogether in some other way if needs be.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 9, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

What you are saying here makes perfect sense if you remove the term marriage and replace it with incentives.

That may be true when viewing premise #1 in isolation. However, it makes no sense when considered in the context of the entire argument of which premise #1 is but a part, since, as mentioned previously, the incentive that is designated in the argument is specific to marriage.

I have no issue with the govt. incentivizing pro-creation. My concern is the use of a religious ceremony to do this.

Are you suggesting that only civil ceremonies, and not religious ceremonies, be performed for legal marriages? If so, what is your basis?

Especially when it is not that case that all religious groups would share the definition you have cited related to marriage in the religious context and they should have the right to perform a marriage according to the dictates of their own religious tradition.

Again, you aren't correctly grasping the issue. Religions are already entirely free to perform marriages as they choose and to define marriage according to the dictates of their tradition. Marital laws don't prevent them from doing as they wish. Rather, marital laws simply prevent those idiosyncratic marriages from being legally recognized by the government in accordance with how the people have traditionally decided to legally define marriage. Select religions do not have the right to impose their idiosynbcratic definitions onto the government against the will of the people, particularly if such an imposition isn't, from a cost/benefit perspective, in the people's interest or may even be against the peoples interest--as the case may be.

If you are saying that "all" churches can conduct marriages according to their own tradition they just can not issue a formal document from the govt. endorsing the action then I am not sure I have an issue with this either.

See above.

I just think it would be better for the govt. to avoid using the term, phrase or tradition of marriage at all and instead appropriately name the govt. contract as a relationship contract.

I can see your point when viewing premise #1 in isolation. It makes diminished sense, if at all, in light of the entire argument.

I also am not sure why the govt. should incentivize the relationship union itself, rather I think incentivizing the product of said relationships would make more sense.

Again, this may make some sense when viewing premise #1 in isolation. It makes diminished sense, if at all, in light of the entire argument.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 9, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

If you are now saying that it isn't a reaon to allow or disallow marriages regardless of sexual orientation, then I am in complete agreement.

I have yet to consider adoption as a controlling factor for the government allowing or disallowing marriage. In other words, adoption isn't directly relevant to the points that I have been making.

Evidently I misunderstood your premise. I thought you were making a case against gay marriage. This is the first time I have ever seen you agree that procreation is not a valid argument against gay marriage. YEAH.

Evidently, you still misunderstand my premise. Adoption and procreation are two separate issues. The former is irrelevant to my premise and argument, and the later is fundamental to my premise and argument. How you figure that I agree with you that procreation is not a valid argument against gay marriage, when my carefully reasoned and sound case suggests exactly the opposite, is anyone's guess.

Is all gay marriage advocated are asking for is the exact same rights as other non procreation marriages.

Actually, against the people's interest, only some gays are asking the government to confer to non-procreative relationships a right that was only in the people's interest to confer based primarily on procreation. As indicated, this is irrational on several levels.

Of course, for purposes of practicality and efficiency of language, when I speak of procreative relationships I am speaking of a type or class of relationship where the general rule is procreation, and not specific to exceptions to the rule. In other words, when I speak of procreative relationships, I am obviously referring to sexual relationships between a man and a woman (heterosexual relationships), which would include exceptional cases like men and women who engage in hetero-sex and thus have the potential to procreate, but who chose not to have children, or men and women who engages in the same, but who are or may at some point become infertile and limited in their capacity to procreate.

Whereas, when I speak of non-procreative relationships, I am speaking of the types of relationships where the general rule is non-procriative--such as with homosexuals, friendships, lawyer-client, doctor-patient, teacher-student, etc. etc., which would include exceptional cases like artificial insemination.

I would have thought this was obvious, but evidently I was wrong in your case.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 9, 2012 by wenglund

[california boy]

I have yet to consider adoption as a controlling factor for the government allowing or disallowing marriage. In other words, adoption isn't directly relevant to the points that I have been making.

Evidently, you still misunderstand my premise. Adoption and procreation are two separate issues. The former is irrelevant to my premise, and the other is fundamental to my premise. How you figure that I agree with you that procreation is not a valid argument against gay marriage, when my carefully reasoned and sound case suggests exactly the opposite, is anyone's guess.

Actually, against the people's interest, only some gays are asking the government to confer to non-procreative relationships a right that was in the people's interest and based primarily on procreation. As indicated, this is irrational on several levels.

Of course, for purposes of practicality and efficiency of language, when I speak of procreative relationships I am speaking of a type or class of relationship where the general rule is procreation, and not to specific individual exceptions to the rule. In other words, when I speak of procreative relationships, I am obviously referring to sexual relationships between a man and a woman (heterosexual relationships), which would include exceptional cases like men and women who engage in hetero-sex and thus have the potential to procreate, but who chose not to have children, or men and women who engages in the same, but who are or may at some point become infertile and limited in their capacity to procreate.

Whereas, when I speak of non-procreative relationships, I am speaking of the types of relationships where the general rule is non-procriative--such as with homosexuals, friendships, lawyer-client, doctor-patient, teacher-student, etc. etc., which would include exceptional cases like artificial insemination.

I would have thought this was obvious, but evidently I was wrong in your case.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You sound to me like you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Whatever. I don't really care enough how you twist your logic to suit your own agenda. So we will part at this point.

You certainly will for personal insults. _Ares

Edited October 9, 2012 by Ares

[wenglund]

Premise #3:

A. Secular. Not only are procreative relationships fundamental to the existence and survival and evolution of a people, but they are also the impetus for the fundamental and critical structure of society--i.e. the family. They are also the foundation of the most ideal familial structure, particularly when procreative relationships are formally committed and longterm. Given the implications of social evolution, and absent sufficient evidence to the contrary from recent social experiments, it is reasonable to conclude that societies in general, and families in particular, benefit most from the ideal, committed, and longterm familial structure headed by two opposite-sex biological parents. As such, it is in the people's interest for governments to encourage such ideal familial structures by way of legal marriage and governmental incentives for procreative relationships to remain committed longterm.

B. Religious. See the The Family: A Proclamation to the World

So, once again, as you may see, the third premise in the argument for governments getting into the marriage business, doesn't pertain to homosexual relationships since those relationships aren't by nature procreative and they do not form the impetus or foundation for the ideal familial structure of society.

As with the previous two premises, and unlike with procreative relations, a case has yet to be made that possible benefits derived from non-procreative relations and inferior familial structures exceeding the costs to the government in extending marital rights and incentive to those relations and alternative familial structures, and it may even reasonably be argued to the contrary. It is not in the people's interest to legalize and incentivise SSM, and so it doesn't make sense to do so.

This is not to say that there aren't other ways in which it may be in the people's interest to assist and help alternative familial structures--ways that don't dilute or detract from the people's interest in promoting, by way of marriage, the ideal, committed, and longterm familial structure headed by two opposite-sex biological parents. There is--though, as indicated previously, through legislation that is specific to the areas of needed assistance, like child health and welfare programs.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You sound to me like you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Whatever. I don't really care enough how you twist your logic to suit your own agenda. So we will part at this point.

Wrong. As the record clearly shows (at least to the reasonably minded), my reasoning has been logically sound and valid and consistent, and stands in stark contrast to your frequent misrepresentations, fallacious ad hominems, baseless dismissals, and bald assertions--which is the best you have yet to offer. In terms of my logic and your propaganda, we certainly do part company on this point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 9, 2012 by wenglund

[Damien the Leper]

I have an aunt and daughter who have embraced the homosexual lifestyle. My aunt was born with strong tendencies this way and then through sexual abuse, she never looked back.

My daughter on the other hand did not have strong tendencies this way, but started dabbling in it because it was "cool." Now she has fully embraced the lifestyle. It is unpopular to say it, but my daughter engaged in this lifestyle because of peer pressure. It enrages me that we accept that peer pressure can lead to drug addiction, violent behavior, etc., but often don't accept that it can lead to sexual addictions like homosexuality as well. My daughter (for now) is a casualty of our social acceptance of homosexuality, and probably only one of many to come.

My point... the propaganda works and is dangerous

Although a popular star, Dr. Drew Pinski would more than likely disagree with your assumptions concerning human sexuality. I have listened and attended many of his lectures over the last ten years. The astonishing trend for persons to act out in certain ways sexually is usually due to adult-on-child sexual abuse, child-on-child sexual abuse, contentious issues with parents/family, etc.

Sexual orientation is inborn. You're born with a predisposition to a certain sexual attraction and proclivities. What is often used as false arguments and propaganda by organizations, such as "Focus on the Family" and NARTH, is that there is some equivalency or commonality between homosexuality and incest or minor/adult relationships or pedophilia or bestiality. Does sexual abuse in some way influence one's sexual proclivities? Yes. Does it necessarily influence one's sexual orientation? No.

Blooit provided a case where his family member after sexual abuse embraced a certain sexual orientation. My first question to ask is what is the history of the abuse? Who was it? How old was she? How old was the offender? Did she receive any kind of treatment (preferably NON-religious as they tend to be biased within psychological and psychiatric therapy)? Then I would begin to ask questions about her own feelings and thoughts about her individual identity apart from what family and/or society says she should be. Nothing can be more harmful than embracing an identity based on societal or familial influences. This leads me to the second case Blooit spoke of concerning his daughter.

If I were a therapist, I would ask similar questions. But I would approach the peer pressure a little differently. I would ask about her friends and try to understand where and why she is being pressured. This offense against Blooit's daughter is an act of violence. Not necessarily in a physical sense (with the exception of some kind of physical sexual abuse). It is unfortunate that 'kids' view certain behaviors as a 'fad'. It shows a great deal of ignorance.

Do people act out impulsively when it comes to sexual expression? Yes. It is unhealthy both biologically and psychologically. This is a very serious issue that deserves more attention and certainly deserves less black and white conclusions concerning it.