Another gay thread, (groan), but this time only LOGIC is allowed! (Yay)

[croxis]

Marriage was once a very personal thing, a very private matter, and thats what I honestly think it should be, between the couple and whatever relationship they want their union to have with their religious entity of choice (or lack there of).

 

[GenMarshall]

If marriage is for the purpose of procreation/raising children then those unable to have children should not be able to marry correct?

I'm sure infertile heterosexual couples everywhere would take issue with that.

Erm no, infertile heterosexual couples and post-menapausal women are allowed to marry. Within Catholicism, they dont teach that couples must have as many children as biologicaly possible. Infertility is one of the most painfull and agonizing crosses that many married Christian couples have to carry. Conception and pregnancy does not have to occur each time. If a post-menopausal woman or an infertile couple lost the natural ability to become pregnent, marries, then their marriage is just as valid as thoes who are young enough to conceive.

 

[GenMarshall]

CG: then why did you even bother posting here in the first place?

Mainly I just want to put my $0.02 in.

 

[Sidhe]

The funny thing is and being utterly logical about this most gays couldn't give a damn about marriage, all they want is civil union and financial equality with heterosexual married couples, the Church is not even part of the equation. Personally I'm in no disagreement that marriage and gays should be kept seperate, respect the homosexual minorities and respect the church, all are winners, sound logical?

 

[Pyrite]

"Mainly I just want to put my $0.02 in"

But this is a debate based on logic.
And we could have just read the catechism for your 2 cents.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Croxis actually makes a good point. The reason that the leaders of my church have spoken out against gay marriage (they usually don't get involved in politics) is because as a point of doctrine we believe that governments should uphold the sanctity of marriage. But I feel that the best way to do this is to remove the idea of marriage as a contract made with the government, and make it between the individuals involved.

 

[Hotpoint]

Erm no, infertile heterosexual couples and post-menapausal women are allowed to marry.

I'm sorry but if "marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Mainly because I feel and believe that same-gender unions are in contrary to the natrual law. The natural purpose of marriage and sex is procreation and any union or sexual act where procreation is not theoretically possible is not in accordance with the natural law and thus is intrnsically immoral " then your exceptions just don't hold any water logically. The fact that you can make them means that you don't really think the former, it's just being used as a pseudo-intellectual argument to prohibit gay marriage on purely subjective religious grounds.

 

[Mise]

Why do married couples get legal and financial benefits from the government? I think that question should be the starting point of any logical treatment of gay marriage.

 

[Pyrite]

For the purpose of supporting offspring. But gay couples ARE allowed to adopt, and non-gay couples aren't forced to have children. So that reasoning is flawed.

 

[Little Raven]

Why do married couples get legal and financial benefits from the government?

Because regardless of whether they're red or blue, democratic or authoritarian, pacifist or militarist...governments just can't leave social engineering alone. And marriage is one of the best places to do it.

 

[Atlas14]

Why do married couples get legal and financial benefits from the government? I think that question should be the starting point of any logical treatment of gay marriage.

Married couples usually have more children, and thus will bring into this world more taxpayers, so they are rewarded for this good deed.

 

[WillJ]

We have an established legal tradition the way things are. Changing it will entail a cost. Is there a compelling logical reason to accept such a cost? If so, what is it?

Is there a compelling logical reason to see anything as a "cost"? Just like benefit, the word cost implies a value judgement.

Little Raven, I'll take what you said a step further: There's no such thing as an argument only using "logic." Logic is a tool to connect one statement to another. But you have to start somewhere, with premises, which may or may not be religious.

 

[Gladi]

I'm sorry but if "marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Mainly because I feel and believe that same-gender unions are in contrary to the natrual law. The natural purpose of marriage and sex is procreation and any union or sexual act where procreation is not theoretically possible is not in accordance with the natural law and thus is intrnsically immoral " then your exceptions just don't hold any water logically. The fact that you can make them means that you don't really think the former, it's just being used as a pseudo-intellectual argument to prohibit gay marriage on purely subjective religious grounds.

Bright day
He means that people in same-gender sexual relationship purposedly scorn their God-given gist of procreation.

Marriage was once a very personal thing, a very private matter, and thats what I honestly think it should be, between the couple and whatever relationship they want their union to have with their religious entity of choice (or lack there of).

Pray, tell me, when? The only marriage law not concerning any higher authority is Roman Marriage of Custom, where the couple had just to live together for a year.

Now for me, I feel that it has not been proven even with doubt (cannot risk children, afterall) that people in same-gender relationships make worse parents then couples of difering genders. Thus I see no reason to bar anybody from state recognition and support.

 

[Elrohir]

NO FLAMING OR SPAM!​

So anyway here's another thread to debate gay marrage, but this time religous arguments, argumets about how it's "not natrual," arguments about how "the only purpose of marrage is procreation and rasing children," arguments about how "The definition of marriage a union between a man and a women," and arguments about how it's "immoral," are all, not allowed. Instead all arguments must be based on logic. I thought it was about time somebody did this, so let's hear us a logical debate shall we?

What if those arguments you mentioned could be proven to be based upon a logical basis? Would they then be allowed in this thread?

I suspect not. Which makes this thread quite pointless, and need I say it, stupid. What's the point of a debate if you limit what someone may say before it starts? Saying someone can't use many of their arguments, just because you don't like them, is pointless: It's not a true debate, it's just you creating an artificial discussion based upon rules that give you an unfair advantage.

If you want a real discussion, then I'd be happy to debate this issue with you. But seriously, limiting certain arguments just because you find them "illogical" is inane.

 

[Hotpoint]

Bright day
He means that people in same-gender sexual relationship purposedly scorn their God-given gist of procreation.

Well if you're right in your interpretation then if an individuals ability to procreate is a God-given gift then anothers infertility must be God denying the gift... this God fellow seems a bit arbitrary in his gift giving to me

 

[Sidhe]

Married couples usually have more children, and thus will bring into this world more taxpayers, so they are rewarded for this good deed.

Some research has shown that women who have gay realtions tend to have more children, which suggests the gene or genes that lead to such hormonal types, or however you want to word it are of positive value in women, should we reward them or the impication that it is the gay genetics in the familial relationship that causes this?

 

[Japanrocks12]

Some thoughts:

When did the sanctity of marriage thing come into being? If this idea was developed with the advent of religions, then there is not much sanctity to see in most marriages because most marriages at the time were for political/fiscal gains.

If the entire sanctity of marriage idea is being used to argue against homosexual marriage, then if you think about it, this argument does not carry much weight because many many marriages were out of money/political/arranged reasons.

 

[Pyrite]

"What if those arguments you mentioned could be proven to be based upon a logical basis"

I say you should go for it. Show us the logic of jesus's hate for homosexuals!

 

[Sidhe]

Some thoughts:

When did the sanctity of marriage thing come into being? If this idea was developed with the advent of religions, then there is not much sanctity to see in most marriages because most marriages at the time were for political/fiscal gains.

If the entire sanctity of marriage idea is being used to argue against homosexual marriage, then if you think about it, this argument does not carry much weight because many many marriages were out of money/political/arranged reasons.

It's the ceremony, it is religous, the church can't control the morality of marriage, in fact it has shied away from doing so for political reasons and no doubt because it wants to encourage monogamy, and speak out against fornication, anyway it would be a nightmare trying to find out how comitted every individual is towards the moral and spiritual tennants of marraige and not the more Earthly concerns, all it can do is outline the sanctity and hope God fearing people adhere to it's message.

Marriage is primarily to encourage procreation, God want's to join a man and a woman together to have children and this trumps everything I would suspect, until recently divorce was the privillage of kings or nobles, so if you married that was it so it was a more effective way to keep people in a stable relationship and thus leave them to rear there children until death parted them, if the sanctity was set aside by unscrupulous individuals, they were tied to one person anyway and were bound by law to fulfill their promise, logically I think therefore they could only deal with the limits of human nature as it stood, the church knows all marriages aren't sanctified by God because of their inherent politics or whatever, but the ends justify the means. The fact remains though that, when you are married legitimately you are laying yourself bare under the eyes of God, and he sees everything

I think I'm musing overly, but there's sense in there somewhere. These days the tennants of marriage of the past are not so relevant, but the ideas behind them are at least worth upholding.

 

[Eukaryote]

What if those arguments you mentioned could be proven to be based upon a logical basis? Would they then be allowed in this thread?

I suspect not. Which makes this thread quite pointless, and need I say it, stupid. What's the point of a debate if you limit what someone may say before it starts? Saying someone can't use many of their arguments, just because you don't like them, is pointless: It's not a true debate, it's just you creating an artificial discussion based upon rules that give you an unfair advantage.

If you want a real discussion, then I'd be happy to debate this issue with you. But seriously, limiting certain arguments just because you find them "illogical" is inane.

I wanted to hear a debate based on logic, if you don't like it or think it's unfair, tough. I just hear so may arguments with no logic behind them and I knew I wasn't the only person who wanted a break from it. You are welcome to use any logic based argument you want and fight on either side. But if you don't like the theme of this thread then that is simply your problem. Go post somewhere else.

Oh and and I'm going to quote Pyrite here:

I say you should go for it. Show us the logic of jesus's hate for homosexuals!