Anti-Gay Marriage

[shadykid]

in other news, Delaware is the 11th state to pass marriage equality

[I.M. Gei]

I'd like to think that at this rate, in ten, fifteen years time, the only people in this country who will publicly admit to being against gay marriage will be the ones wearing white hoods

[shadykid]

link here:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/delaware-senate-passes-marriage-equality-bill-will-be-law

[peener weener]

I thiiink Eclipse means there would have to be a drastic (like, friggin catastrophic) population drop to even consider accepting that line of reasoning as an argument against gay marriage (because with the world's population and growth as-is, it's a ridiculous idea, of course, so things would have to be totally different to even take it seriously)

But not being able to marry doesn't stop people from being gay, neither does equal marriage encourage straight people to become gay (which is something that can't happen at all), and as we've settled earlier in the thread, marriage has never really been a factor for procreation or arranged with it in mind.

Even "extreme" circumstances cannot justify denying someone a civil right. This is like trying to make sense of and justify segregation, historical context my fucking arse.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Stolypin Necktie

[Kay]

Animals reproduce and raise children. How come they don't have this thing you call 'marriage'? You might be speaking of monogamous relationships: and yes, they happened so that the man could allocate resources to the raising of his, and only HIS children. Meanwhile the woman also benefits in raising her child since she has a reliable partner in getting resources. There are also assumptions that monogamous relationships started due to meat eating- since meat was heavy, one needed partners to carry more food: Monogamy ensured there was a reliable way to get resources.

She said that reproduction is an implied goal of marriage, not that reproduction is or necessitates marriage. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

[Baldrick]

What she said is that marriage is designed to make reproduction more efficient.

If she is right, then the people who invented marriage were doing it wrong. In order to reproduce, you need to have sexual intercourse. In order to ensure your offspring (and by extension, your genes) have the best chance of survival, you need to put all your resources into protecting them. At no time do you need to get married.

[Rehab]

But not being able to marry doesn't stop people from being gay, neither does equal marriage encourage straight people to become gay (which is something that can't happen at all), and as we've settled earlier in the thread, marriage has never really been a factor for procreation or arranged with it in mind.

Even "extreme" circumstances cannot justify denying someone a civil right. This is like trying to make sense of and justify segregation, historical context my fucking arse.

That I'm having a hard time trying to invent a situation to put what I think the line of reasoning is here in perspective, might be a sign that even the premise is kinda kooky, but here's speculating.

Honestly I'm getting into fantasy or scifi here, but I can imagine a situation where we're struck by a catastrophe that causes such widespread destruction, and a population drop so humongous, that society (societies?) would have a hard time functioning as usual, and that it somehow becomes actual work to sustain population growth, work so hard it's effectively impossible unless everyone in society is part of it.

There's a major chink in the chain of speculations being made here, in that I don't even know, all else assumed, if it's even possible for the number of humans left alive to be so low that even that one tenth (? at most) of the population that's gay would need to be siring and raising children to avoid humanity going extinct, without such a low population functionally dooming us to extinction anyway, but, uh, anyway.

Theoretically, I can imagine some wise guy arguing that there needs to be some sort of social institution overseeing this growth, that would force everyone to "do their part" for it. And I can imagine that wise guy arguing that allowing gay people to live together as what we consider "married" means those people wouldn't be contributing to making or raising children (not even necessarily a true assertion on that level, but this is post-apocalyptia and everybody's head is still ringing and for some reason this guy isn't getting shut up as fast as we'd expect), and claiming that this needs to be restricted by society.

There are like. So many holes in this "argument" that I can't imagine I've thought of even half of them, and I don't think I could possibly be convinced if somebody tried to sell it to me as I've imagined it. But I can at least imagine some guy arguing that civil rights as we recognize them should be, uh, suspended, in a way that includes forbidding interaction not aimed at repopulation, and including gay marriage in that.

You're right on all counts as far as I'm concerned, of course, and I've basically imagined a bad Fist of the North Star villain's ideology here. And I'm not even sure it would hold water with the thought-experiment-bizarre premises in place. But if I've heard some dude arguing homosexuality was the downfall of the Roman Empire [pause for laughter], I can imagine that being argued, too.

(imagine imagine imagine)

Edited May 8, 2013 by Rehab

[peener weener]

god you're so adorable

Edited May 8, 2013 by Stolypin Necktie

[Bluedoom]

She said that reproduction is an implied goal of marriage, not that reproduction is or necessitates marriage. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

She said that the purpose of marriage was to raise/educate children and perpetuate the human race. This function was already performed by heterosexual monogamous relationships, which I spoke about in the post you quoted.

If Marriage performed the same functions as HMR, then there needs to be something more about it to distinguish it from HMR. And it is THIS DIFFERENCE that defines marriage- it is a civil/ceremonial union between two people. It has almost no relation with making babies. If couples with no children exist, its fair enough for me to assume she confused marriage for HMR.(and even then now in modern times the purpose of relationships are deviating from this function)

tl;dr version would be what Baldrick said.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Bluedoom

[eclipse]

Rehab, you're the best~! necktie, you're better than this.

The situation I had in mind would require a drastic, uneven population drop - something that would have to call into question the survival of humanity, AND something that would really skewer the male:female ratio towards the females (having a lot of men in proportion to the women ain't gonna make pregnancy go faster). If this happened, I'd be betting against humanity anyway, due to a lack of genetic diversity.

[-Cynthia-]

We also don't even need sex to create children anymore- in theory a society full of gay men and lesbians could function quite adequately.

[eclipse]

We also don't even need sex to create children anymore- in theory a society full of gay men and lesbians could function quite adequately.

That's assuming that the labs and whatnot work, and there's people around that know what to do with them. If society takes that kind of nose dive, I wouldn't count on it.

[-Cynthia-]

That's assuming that the labs and whatnot work, and there's people around that know what to do with them. If society takes that kind of nose dive, I wouldn't count on it.

True, honestly the basis for the Leviticus being against homosexuality is probably due to homosexuality not helping to keep the population alive (high mortality rates those days, especially for babies). This is why it's featured along such hints as not eating shellfish or wearing clothes of different fabrics- it's a 'survival guide' on how to live in the time period. Why people act like the Leviticus line is a moral code sent down from God while the stuff around it is ignored doesn't make sense to me.

[Anouleth]

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

Yet, we allow infertile people or old people to get married, even though they can't have children. Nor do we annul marriages that don't result in a child as "failed" marriages.

Maybe, once upon a time, marriage existed to help people have children (although how marriage helps people have children, I don't understand), but over time it has evolved to be a public expression of love and commitment between two people. Since there's no reason that love and commitment can't exist between two men or two women, the rules of who can get married should be changed to accommodate the change in what marriage is, and what marriage means to the vast majority of people who get married.

[Redwall]

True, honestly the basis for the Leviticus being against homosexuality is probably due to homosexuality not helping to keep the population alive (high mortality rates those days, especially for babies). This is why it's featured along such hints as not eating shellfish or wearing clothes of different fabrics- it's a 'survival guide' on how to live in the time period. Why people act like the Leviticus line is a moral code sent down from God while the stuff around it is ignored doesn't make sense to me.

I believe the rationale is that, from the perspecitve of many conservative Christians, while Jesus was said to have done away with the Old Covenant and the relevant purity laws (such as shellfish et al.), there continue to be putative references to homosexuality in Romans and 1 Timothy, for example.

[dondon151]

Maybe, once upon a time, marriage existed to help people have children (although how marriage helps people have children, I don't understand),

marriage promotes monogamous relationships, which in turn promotes care for the offspring, who contribute to a healthy society. of course, we can do away with much of that now and still end with the same result.

i am eternally bewildered by the foundation of the religious argument against gay marriage. say that there existed an institution for gay couples that provided identical political benefits to marriage, only that it were named something else and not ordained by a religious figure. how would that be any different from marriage?

obviously, we know that separate but equal doesn't work in practice, so the logical conclusion of this train of thought is that marriage must be integrated entirely.

[peener weener]

But like I said, marriage was never arranged with procreation as its driving purpose, and is by no means efficient for it. In that extreme scenario (and like rehab mentioned, with even a premise full of holes) even the modern traditional marriage would be discouraged, since just fucking as many women as you can would be the best thing you can do for humanity if it is indeed that desperate.

I respect you, eclipse. So with all due respect, fuck off. ok ok that was uncalled for, i'm sorry and i love you

This is getting fairly off-topic what with the unlikely scenarios, so I'll try to drop it here.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Stolypin Necktie

[shadykid]

anyway, less telling people to fuck off, more good news!

marriage equality passes the Minnesota House, now it moves on to the Senate, where they most likely have the votes

[I.M. Gei]

anyway, less telling people to fuck off, more good news!

marriage equality passes the Minnesota House, now it moves on to the Senate, where they most likely have the votes

Incoming Twitter shitstorm (much like with Delaware's passing of gay marriage)

(public shaming is a wonderful tumblr, have I ever mentioned that?)

[eclipse]

Incoming Twitter shitstorm (much like with Delaware's passing of gay marriage)

(public shaming is a wonderful tumblr, have I ever mentioned that?)

I see a disturbing lack of separation of government and religion in those tweets. I know Christianity's big in the States, but even if it is my religion, I don't want it anywhere near the law books.

Also Stolypin, ilu~!

[Anouleth]

marriage promotes monogamous relationships, which in turn promotes care for the offspring, who contribute to a healthy society. of course, we can do away with much of that now and still end with the same result.

i am eternally bewildered by the foundation of the religious argument against gay marriage. say that there existed an institution for gay couples that provided identical political benefits to marriage, only that it were named something else and not ordained by a religious figure. how would that be any different from marriage?

obviously, we know that separate but equal doesn't work in practice, so the logical conclusion of this train of thought is that marriage must be integrated entirely.

Well, I don't think that just giving it a different name is really the same as "separate but equal". Whether we call gay marriage "gay marriage" or "civil unions" doesn't matter, I think.

[Rehab]

I'm wondering, in the event I got a life partner etc. of either sex, exactly how much pleasure I would derive from the "fuck you" factor in technically getting a civil union purposefully instead of married, versus the visitation rights and health insurance and the oi etc. that I'm unsure whether I'd be missing out on

In the optimal situation of course I'd like civil unions to be equal, for the obvious justice factor and so I could have my cake and eat it too, but until then etc etc

Edited May 11, 2013 by Rehab

[deleted35362]

Once I saw a video of this rally or movement or whatever against gay marriage. A bunch of teenagers would write down why they don't support it.

There was a disturbingly high amount of people who would say something along the lines of "I would hate to imagine my life growing up with a mom and a dad...everyone deserves one!" ಠ_ಠ

[shadykid]

Once I saw a video of this rally or movement or whatever against gay marriage. A bunch of teenagers would write down why they don't support it.

There was a disturbingly high amount of people who would say something along the lines of "I would hate to imagine my life growing up with a mom and a dad...everyone deserves one!" ಠ_ಠ

wait what

I think you meant without a mom and a dad, cause otherwise this makes no sense

[deleted35362]

Right, right. My mistake. They think that no child should be raised by 2 moms or dads. In other words, they're not okay with children being exposed to homosexuality at a young age(which would increase the chances of the child growing up to be accepting of homosexuality). Amazing.