Philosophy Now Forum

Kayla wrote:my wife - or girlfriend if you prefer - we know quite a few people who know about our relationship and yet seem to be unable to use the word 'wife' - and i live together, have a whole lot of finances in common and adopted a child

if you are going to take the view that we should not have the same treatment under the law as a hetero married couple, the burden on proof should be on you, not me - you will have to explain what the relevant difference is between our relationship - or a relationship that would exist if one of us were a guy

No, the burden of proof is on you. These terms have historical meanings that you cannot wish away. Marriage is based on biology, ultimately, and males and females are not interchangeable.

Melchior wrote:No, the burden of proof is on you. These terms have historical meanings that you cannot wish away. Marriage is based on biology, ultimately, and males and females are not interchangeable.

using the same reasoning you can condemn senior citizens getting married since they cannot reproduce

but neither you nor your other sockpuppet, inglorios, answered my question

maybe i can make it more explicit

suppose i get gruesomely killed by some farm machinery, leaving my wife (or girlfriend, if you prefer) with my share of the business, my money, our daughter, etc

with regards to child custody - would their be any justification for dealing with our daughter differently than if i were a man?

with regard to finances - is there any justification to dispose of my estate any differently then if i were a man?

The Inglorious One wrote:

Kayla wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:Exactly, so what the hell does "gays" getting together have to do with marriage? Marriage evolved as a way to prevent competition for mates and progeny from turning violent and causing unrest. It is a way reign-in the consequences of lust, not to sanction it.

you brought up accidental pregnancies and single parent families as an argument against same-sex marriage, not me

Answer the question: What the hell do “gays” have to do with the evolution of marriage as we have it today and why should the same benefits apply to them? Because they protest? So what if they do? Because it's only fair? That's an emotional response, not a rational answer.

Does that make me a bigot or a “homophobe”? Maybe it does, but both accusations are irrelevant to the argument.

Some have argued for a REAL rational argument against SSM. Fine, but it cuts both ways.

It's called social evolution and progress. It's about giving everyone equal rights. It's about being an evolved and enlightened society. Women and children used to be the property of the husband. Rape didn't exist in marriage. Women had no marital rights at all. I'm sure that plenty of people objected when those things changed as well. There are always those who have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the present eg husbands who want to be able to beat and rape their wives with impunity.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: It's called social evolution and progress. It's about giving everyone equal rights. It's about being an evolved and enlightened society.

Evolution, especially in matters of social evolution, is not a history of steady progress. Any historian will tell you that. The question is, then, is legitimizing SSM really a step forward? The onus is on you to show that it is. Are you saying an “evolved and enlightened society,” a progressive society, redefines words to designate something they were never meant to, reinterprets its laws to cater to a vocal minority and persecutes the politically incorrect? That doesn't sound very "enlightened" to me. It sounds like something Germany did in the 1930's.

Moreover, that doesn't answer the question I asked: What the hell do “gays” have to do with the evolution of marriage as we have it today and why should the same benefits apply to them? Because they protest? So what if they do? Because it's only fair? That's an emotional response, not a rational answer.

Laws having to do with marriage were not designed to accommodate same sex unions and there is no reason why society should bear the burden of a vocal minority, any more than a football team should be forced to bear the burden of an unfit player because it's '"only fair." Marriage, and society in general, evolved around male/female relationships for the reasons I mentioned previously. “Gays,” although sometimes tolerated and oftentimes reviled, were and are inconsequential to that evolution. You provided evidence of this yourself when you said:

Women and children used to be the property of the husband. Rape didn't exist in marriage. Women had no marital rights at all. I'm sure that plenty of people objected when those things changed as well. There are always those who have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the present eg husbands who want to be able to beat and rape their wives with impunity.

Everything said here has to do with male/female marriages. Things did evolve, but they were not imposed they way "gay" advocates impose their agenda.

The Inglorious One wrote:Things did evolve, but they were not imposed they way "gay" advocates impose their agenda.

people who do not want to same-sex marry are not affected by ssm in any way

where is the imposition?

i know there are rumours circulating about mandatory gay marriage whether people like it or not, but those rumours are not true

Kayla wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:Things did evolve, but they were not imposed they way "gay" advocates impose their agenda.

people who do not want to same-sex marry are not affected by ssm in any way

where is the imposition?

i know there are rumours circulating about mandatory gay marriage whether people like it or not, but those rumours are not true

Living in California, my neighbor using a lot of water has no immediate effect on me, either. It is not an issue of having an immediate effect on me personally, but the long term effect on society as a whole over time.

Marriage evolved over tens of thousands of years, always with a male-female relationship being the determining factor. The onus is on you to show that SSM is not harmful to society as a whole.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Kayla wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:Things did evolve, but they were not imposed they way "gay" advocates impose their agenda.

people who do not want to same-sex marry are not affected by ssm in any way

where is the imposition?

i know there are rumours circulating about mandatory gay marriage whether people like it or not, but those rumours are not true

Living in California, my neighbor using a lot of water has no immediate effect on me, either. It is not an issue of having an immediate effect on me personally, but The long term effect on society as a whole over time.

Well I think heterosexual marriage has a negative long term effect on society, what with all those divorces and miserable children, and the overpopulation, since according to you only married people can have children.

"Where is the imposition?" Seriously? People with religious objections cannot even own a business and run it the way they want to. And that just scratches the surface. Remember the Chick-Fil-A incident? The list just goes on and on.

The Inglorious One wrote:"Where is the imposition?" Seriously? People with religious objections cannot even own a business and run it the way they want to. And that just scratches the surface. Remember the Chick-Fil-A incident? The list just goes on and on.

'Religious objections'? You mean people who object to religion?

...

The Inglorious One wrote:Oh, geez. No wonder civilization is on the decline. This is a philosophy forum and the people here would get lost in a tube-like maze that's open at both ends and the exits clearly marked.

Since the liberalisation of morality civilisation has gone from strength to strength.

The only thing stopping progress is people like you and other fundamentalists like ISIS who want to tell other people how to live their lives.

The are the only person here doing that.

The Inglorious One wrote: Everything said here has to do with male/female marriages. Things did evolve, but they were not imposed they way "gay" advocates impose their agenda.

The only one I see trying to "impose" anything on this website is you.
No one is trying to make you gay, sweetie.

Touche to both of those, Hobbes.

The Inglorious One wrote:"Where is the imposition?" Seriously? People with religious objections cannot even own a business and run it the way they want to.

who is stopping them

they knew when they got into business that discrimination on prohibited grounds (e.g. race, sexual orientation) is, well, prohibited

if they did not like that, they should not have gotten into business

also they had no problems making wedding cakes for people who divorced and were marrying again - forbidden by the Bible - so their claim that they are merely acting on their religious beliefs is total bullshit anyway

And that just scratches the surface. Remember the Chick-Fil-A incident? The list just goes on and on.

what about the chick-fil-a incident

people were free to call for boycotts of businesses last time i checked

not that either of these have anything to do with same sex marriage

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote: It's called social evolution and progress. It's about giving everyone equal rights. It's about being an evolved and enlightened society. Women and children used to be the property of the husband. Rape didn't exist in marriage. Women had no marital rights at all. I'm sure that plenty of people objected when those things changed as well. There are always those who have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the present eg husbands who want to be able to beat and rape their wives with impunity.

All of this is false. Men and women are not interchangeable biologically, and biology is what is the foundation of marriage. I has absolutely nothing to do with 'equal rights' or becoming 'enlightened'.