Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 177

Thread: Gay marriage bill passes in Minnesota

  1. #41
    Pixel Monkey MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    6,695
    Like
    32
    Liked 773 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornhead View Post
    Having a child later in life comes with increased medical risks too, but I don’t hear the outcry against that. And the historical share of subjugation, abuse, and incest found in traditional marriage cannot be ignored. More compelling arguments than these are required if further expansion of marriage is to be prevented.
    Except that those problems are still prevalent in polygamous marriages. In fact, you could say that modern polygamy is built on those principles, especially after it went underground.

    And there's a significant difference between "if you have a child after 40, there's a 4% chance it could suffer mental disabilities" versus "you have a child with your sister, there's a 50% chance it will carry a regressive gene and will suffer from mental disabilities".

    Let's not even pretend they're the same thing.

    EVEN THEN I'm not entirely against familial relationships, provided extensive gene testing is done beforehand as a common sense precaution. Hey, it's not on me. Not my problem who loves whom. But when the risk is so high versus the amount of people who wish to partake in such a thing, society as a whole probably isn't going to agree with me.

  2. #42
    Senior Member All-Star Ultima Ratio's Avatar
    Posts
    1,655
    Like
    26
    Liked 26 Times in 13 Posts
    The foregoing confirms my suspicion that support (on this board at least) for un/redefining marriage is not one of principle but of emotion.

    If anyone is interested in a principled argument, you can view this video as expository of the thinking I support.

    I'll leave it at that because I don't think any posters here are genuinely interested in the arguments, are not open to changing their minds, and the conversation will (and has) quickly erode into mush.
    Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.

  3. #43
    Pixel Monkey MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    6,695
    Like
    32
    Liked 773 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio View Post
    The foregoing confirms my suspicion that support (on this board at least) for un/redefining marriage is not one of principle but of emotion.
    I can't speak for anyone else but it's not based on emotion for me... It's based entirely on the fact that gay marriage does not affect me one bit and I generally avoid preventing consenting adults from doing things that do not affect me.

    What's your reason?

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    Except that those problems are still prevalent in polygamous marriages. In fact, you could say that modern polygamy is built on those principles, especially after it went underground.

    And there's a significant difference between "if you have a child after 40, there's a 4% chance it could suffer mental disabilities" versus "you have a child with your sister, there's a 50% chance it will carry a regressive gene and will suffer from mental disabilities".

    Let's not even pretend they're the same thing.

    EVEN THEN I'm not entirely against familial relationships, provided extensive gene testing is done beforehand as a common sense precaution. Hey, it's not on me. Not my problem who loves whom. But when the risk is so high versus the amount of people who wish to partake in such a thing, society as a whole probably isn't going to agree with me.
    Those problems are still prevalent among non-polygamous marriages too. We all see plenty of women who willingly marry creeps. Anyhow, what if a woman wants to marry two men, or three men want to marry each other? In a land of 316 million, such cases are certainly out there. What leg do we have to stand on when those people come knocking to demand their rights? I can already see people being labeled Islamophobes since multiple wives are more common in that culture.

    Iíd be interested in the source for your stats, because I wouldn't be surprised in the least if siblings in their mid-20ís produced children as healthy as a couples in their mid-40s. Is that your only objection?

    I agree with Ultima Ratio that support for redefining marriage is largely emotional, although Brock shows a more practical approach than most. But if principle is the basis, I'd like to know what it is. I've heard "love" mentioned, but we don't allow polygamy regardless of how much love is involved. The subject of "rights" is brought up, but California withholds no rights and the fight here is as fervent as anywhere. Please let me know what I'm missing.

  5. #45
    Pixel Monkey MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    6,695
    Like
    32
    Liked 773 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornhead View Post
    Those problems are still prevalent among non-polygamous marriages too. We all see plenty of women who willingly marry creeps. Anyhow, what if a woman wants to marry two men, or three men want to marry each other? In a land of 316 million, such cases are certainly out there. What leg do we have to stand on when those people come knocking to demand their rights? I can already see people being labeled Islamophobes since multiple wives are more common in that culture.
    Prevalent, yes. But not nearly as prevalent as we've seen in the underground polygamous cultures spread around this country. Going to middle school in rural Utah, I saw some pretty ugly sides to polygamy, such as the girls who were pulled out of school by their fathers the MOMENT they were legally allowed to do so.

    If we can find a way to empower those girls and do away with some of those horrible elements that are so intertwined with polygamy, I would have zero issues legalizing the practice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hornhead View Post
    I’d be interested in the source for your stats, because I wouldn't be surprised in the least if siblings in their mid-20’s produced children as healthy as a couples in their mid-40s. Is that your only objection?
    I haven't looked up any stats in a long time but there's a much larger chance of birth disorders with children from familial relationships. If I recall correctly, the chances of two first cousins having a child with birth defects is about the same chance a woman of 40 has of birthing a child with similar problems.

    I don't feel like looking it up but once you get closer than first cousins, that number jumps quite a bit (as you'd probably expect). If you have "inbred" children borne from "inbred" children (two generations of familial relationships), that number jumps to the stratosphere.

  6. #46
    Pixel Monkey MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    6,695
    Like
    32
    Liked 773 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    To continue the pragmatist line of thinking, gay marriage makes sense from a financial standpoint.

    Married people tend to be more stable. Having a built-in support network, they tend to rely on the state less and give more to it.

    Also, allowing gay people to marry means there will be more adoptions, given that gay people can't have children on their own without artificial insemination or a surrogate mother. More adopted children means less of a state burden in the foster care system, as there are plenty of children to adopt in this country.

    All in all, I can't really see a justifiable reason not to allow it.

  7. #47
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,078
    Like
    97
    Liked 341 Times in 194 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    What's your reason?
    Whatever that...thing...was that was posted earlier. You know, if you could find a word laser capable of penetrating the dense layer of dressed up jargon.

  8. #48
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,078
    Like
    97
    Liked 341 Times in 194 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio View Post
    If anyone is interested in a principled argument, you can view this video as expository of the thinking I support.
    So you support circular reasoning? This exposition does nothing to justify one of the premises. I'll break it down:

    1. Marriage is between a man and a woman by definition
    2. It is that way by definition because men and women procreate
    3. Since others can't procreate, they don't fit the definition

    Except the definition is arbitrary. there is nothing justifying that premise. Marriage exists between all sorts of people who cannot procreate (the "in principle" argument is only relevant in a hypothetical, in the real world it is a meaningless distinction) not to mention that marriage is also reinforced as a unit of financial stability. You can't just appeal to the definition as justification for not changing it. You have to support the reasoning for the definition.

    Considering gay couples are raising children (adoption or not) and society could benefit from encouraging stable relationships - those premises are, at the very least, very much in question. However, if you're comfortable with circular arguments - go for it.

  9. #49
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,078
    Like
    97
    Liked 341 Times in 194 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornhead View Post
    But if principle is the basis, I'd like to know what it is. I've heard "love" mentioned, but we don't allow polygamy regardless of how much love is involved.
    Personally, I don't like using the law to punish religious taboos. I like using reason and fairness, which gay marriage passes the muster of both.

  10. #50
    Pixel Monkey MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    6,695
    Like
    32
    Liked 773 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    Whatever that...thing...was that was posted earlier. You know, if you could find a word laser capable of penetrating the dense layer of dressed up jargon.
    I couldn't help but laugh at that video. It was basically nothing more than an incoherent string of words that led directly back to the same point, which was "Gay people shouldn't get married... because of stuff. In principle."

    He sure did dress it up purdy, though.

  11. #51
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    233
    Like
    3
    Liked 24 Times in 12 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    It's not liberals. From the Tea Party website (pay particular attention to #15):

    15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs

    1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
    2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
    3. A strong military is essential.
    4. Special interests must be eliminated.
    5. Gun ownership is sacred.
    6. Government must be downsized.
    7. The national budget must be balanced.
    8. Deficit spending must end.
    9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
    10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
    11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
    12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
    13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
    14. English as our core language is required.
    15. Traditional family values are encouraged.

    Anyone can put up a tea party website or start a tea party organization. We are tea party for the same reason the original tea party occurred. I'm sure many in that group back then were slave owners, I'm sure many thought the idea of slave ownership was pathetic.

    By the way traditional family values are a good thing, two parents who teach morals to their children is a lot better then most family situations these days. I don't happen to care about the sex of the two parents, but if someone else does is that any reason to oppose their fiscal stances to the point that the likes of Barrack Obama and Mark Dayton get voted into office?

  12. #52
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    233
    Like
    3
    Liked 24 Times in 12 Posts
    By the way I googled "the tea party website" the web site you cited didn't come up. But if you're politics require you to believe we hate gays I guess you have to do what you have to do.

  13. #53
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,650
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mikecgrimes View Post
    Anyone can put up a tea party website or start a tea party organization. We are tea party for the same reason the original tea party occurred. I'm sure many in that group back then were slave owners, I'm sure many thought the idea of slave ownership was pathetic.

    By the way traditional family values are a good thing, two parents who teach morals to their children is a lot better then most family situations these days. I don't happen to care about the sex of the two parents, but if someone else does is that any reason to oppose their fiscal stances to the point that the likes of Barrack Obama and Mark Dayton get voted into office?
    Why fight it, just say you are a Republican. Anything of substance the movement brought to the table has been co-opted and corrupted by the party already.
    Papers...business papers.

  14. #54
    Pixel Monkey MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    6,695
    Like
    32
    Liked 773 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by mikecgrimes View Post
    By the way I googled "the tea party website" the web site you cited didn't come up. But if you're politics require you to believe we hate gays I guess you have to do what you have to do.
    It's the first non-wiki and non-news link when you Google "Tea Party".

    Tea Party - Join the Movement. Support the Tea Party.

    Or you can just assume the web developer guy doesn't understand how Google works and how websites gain priority and "legitimacy". I suppose that's logical.

  15. #55
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,078
    Like
    97
    Liked 341 Times in 194 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by drjim View Post
    Why fight it, just say you are a Republican. Anything of substance the movement brought to the table has been co-opted and corrupted by the party already.
    Exactly. I'm amused by the Tea Party's insistence they are still a separate entity. It's kind of cute in a pathetic sort of way.

  16. #56
    Senior Member All-Star Ultima Ratio's Avatar
    Posts
    1,655
    Like
    26
    Liked 26 Times in 13 Posts
    Levi,

    The definition of the institution of marriage has stood for over 4000 years. If that's merely arbitrary then every word is arbitrary since. Hence the living and breathing approach to language now, or what I am glad to call the disrespect and ruinous attitude toward language.

    You would do well to look up the difference between an explanation and an argument. You've given an explanation.

    Socrates is a man. Men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. This is an argument, but given your understanding above, you'd think this is circular, and so every deductive argument would then beg the question.

    Another example:

    1. Bob is an unmarried male
    2. A bachelor is an unmarried male
    3. Therefore, Bob is a bachelor.

    Another perfectly fine argument that is sound, not circular in reasoning or any other fallacy.

    That's a lot to correct something almost irrelevant but perhaps worth it.

    Why don't you tell us why the definition should change? Why do you think the institution was in place from the beginning and has lasted since time immemorial? You and others act like it was just dreamed up recently in order to discriminate.

    The institution of marriage holds a mother and father accountable to each other and to provide for the well-being of any progeny from that relationship, regardless whether the relationship is or continues to be amorous or not.

    Since there can be no progeny from the amorous relationship of two males and two females, the institution/contract of marriage does not apply.

    Now that's why the definition is what it is.

    Until the recent undefining of marriage, a brother couldn't marry a brother, nor marry his sister. It's clear that the reason it was unlawful to marry his sister was because of the deleterious genetic effects. But if that remains the only reason/case to not allow close relatives to marry (with the natural end being procreation), and since two gay male cousins' love cannot result in children, then by this new definition (whatever it is isn't even clear today), they should be allowed to marry. Brock is ok with that and with plural marriage, but says traditionalists are "without a conscience." Good grief.
    Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.

  17. #57
    Senior Member All-Star Ultima Ratio's Avatar
    Posts
    1,655
    Like
    26
    Liked 26 Times in 13 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    Personally, I don't like using the law to punish religious taboos. I like using reason and fairness, which gay marriage passes the muster of both.
    Are you against murder, theft, adultery (maybe not actually) and so on? Be careful, they're all religious taboos. Does your hate of religion go so deep as to religiously disagree with anything "they" support, because, ya know... it's religious and stuff?

    BTW, thanks for bringing religion into this now.... out of nowhere as it was not used before in anything I've argued nor elsewhere. I know, you've got to make it about religious oppression -- easier to demagogue.
    Last edited by Ultima Ratio; 05-15-2013 at 10:17 PM.
    Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.

  18. #58
    Senior Member All-Star Ultima Ratio's Avatar
    Posts
    1,655
    Like
    26
    Liked 26 Times in 13 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    I couldn't help but laugh at that video. It was basically nothing more than an incoherent string of words that led directly back to the same point, which was "Gay people shouldn't get married... because of stuff. In principle."

    He sure did dress it up purdy, though.
    I'll leave it at that because I don't think any posters here are genuinely interested in the arguments, are not open to changing their minds, and the conversation will (and has) quickly erode into mush.
    *Bump
    Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.

  19. #59
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,078
    Like
    97
    Liked 341 Times in 194 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio View Post
    The definition of the institution of marriage has stood for over 4000 years.
    It has? Across all cultures and civilizations? "Unmarried male" is not an arguable definition. Unmarried is a fact that can be proven or disproven. Ditto male. This is not the same kind of premise as - "Marriage is for procreation". I'd argue there is every bit as strong a financial transaction component to marriage historically as it is about procreation.

    In fact, here is a simple definition from wikipedia (I know, not the best source, but where it comes from is reputable. You can find literally thousands of similar definitions if you'd like):"A nonethnocentric definition of marriage is a culturally sanctioned union between two or more people that establishes certain rights and obligations between the people, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws."

    Goes a bit beyond procreation - no? Your Socrates argument only works because we agree on the premises. You can "explain" the definition until you're blue in the face, but no one need accept it when there is significant evidence that your definition is incomplete and, dare I say, conveniently simplistic and with a high degree of historical omissions, to help your point.

    Why don't you tell us why the definition should change?
    Marriage serves two purposes: To facilitate a stable environment to raise children and to stabilize economic partnerships. Gays are living (or want to live) in stable economic partnerships and it benefits the state to have this. Check. Gays are raising children. (In many places, including Minnesota) Check. It also benefits the state, as Brock said, to allow children otherwise not being raised in stable environments more opportunities to do so. Downside? Well, it might mess with dubious definitions, but I guess I'm not too worried about that.

    The institution of marriage holds a mother and father accountable to each other and to provide for the well-being of any progeny from that relationship, regardless whether the relationship is or continues to be amorous or not.
    No, guardianship/family laws do that. One need not be married to be "accountable" to the well being of their progeny. Or do you contend otherwise? If I have a baby with some woman and don't marry her....I'm scot-free on my responsibilities? In fact, a gay man who impregnates a woman is responsible to his child, even if he marries a man. I could go on about how ridiculous your notion is.

    You've got an awful lot of pretentiousness in your presentation for such a shallow understanding.
    Last edited by TheLeviathan; 05-15-2013 at 10:36 PM.

  20. #60
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,078
    Like
    97
    Liked 341 Times in 194 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio View Post
    Are you against murder, theft, adultery (maybe not actually) and so on?
    So...so predictable. I almost posted in tiny print how long it would take someone to bite on that.

    We don't punish murder because it is a religious taboo. We punish murder because it threatens the safety of our societal bonds. Ditto stealing. That they happen to also be religious taboos has historical roots, but is far from interchangeable. I'm glad most religions agree murder is wrong (mighty nice of them, though that definition has hardly remained well followed by most all of them), but that's not why we punish it. I won't oppose laws that coincide with religious teachings, but I don't want laws based solely on them either.
    Last edited by TheLeviathan; 05-15-2013 at 10:37 PM.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.