[Psudo]

The Politics by Aristotle, Section VII xvi wrote:

Now as it is a lawgiver's duty to start from the very beginning in looking for ways to secure the best possible physique for the young who are reared, he must consider first the union of their parents, and ask what kind of people should come together in marriage, and when. In making regulations about the partnership he should have regard both to the spouses themselves and to their length of life, in order that they may arrive at the right ages together at the same time, and so that the period of the father's ability to beget and hat of the mother's to bear children coincide. A period when one of the two is capable and the other is not leads to mutual strive and quarrels. Next, as regards the timing of the children's succession, there should not be too great a gap in age between father and children; for then there is no good that the young can do by showing gratitude to elderly parents, and their fathers are of no help to them. Nor should they be too close in age, for this causes the relationship to be strained: like contemporaries, the people in such a position feel less respect, and the nearness in age leads to bickering in household affairs. And further, to go back to the point we started from, one should ensure that the physique of the children that are produced shall be in accordance with the wishes of the legislator.

In 450 pages of philosophy pertaining to the writing of laws, the only reason Aristotle gives for legislating about marriage is the situation of the children. Applied to modern politics, this supports the "think of the children" argument being used to regulate marriage, including limiting marriage to one man and one unrelated woman.

I'm certainly not arguing that Aristotle is infallible (in fact, I would dispute many of his points and much of his reasoning), but as one of the great Greek philosophers his reasoning deserves consideration. And maybe knowledge of his secular argument will help dispute the mistaken idea that opposition to same-sex marriage is entirely a religious thing.

[Psudo]

It's the same argument used to justify abortion in cases of birth defects, lily. These days we draw the line in a different place, but we use much the same reasoning.

[Psudo]

A birth defect is a failing of physique, which is the end Aristotle seeks. The parallel between preventing marriages that would cause birth defects (incest, most obviously) and aborting severely birth-defected children should be apparent. In case it wasn't, he later mentions abortion by name.

Aristotle wrote:

If contrary to these arrangements copulation does take place and a child is conceived, abortion should be procured before the embryo has acquired life and sensation; the presence of life and sensation will be the mark of division between right and wrong here.

[CanadianJeff]

lily wrote:

We allow anyone to get married, provided they're of legal age and not too closely related. We don't really care if they plan to - or can - have children.

The question here is why don't we care. I don't even care if I'm related to the children or not being a single man I still feel I have an obligation to better the world for the next generation. Everything I do will have an impact on the future of those kids. That's reality and that's why I DO care about what other people do in regards to raising kids and the environment those kids partake in.

And the argument of not a lot of heterosexual couples being able to have kids as justification for the same of homosexual couples simply isn't a valid argument because it's arguing by the exception rather then the rule.

The rule is quite simply that heterosexual couples are 99% of the time built to make babies while the vast majority of homosexual couples are not capable of reproduction. Those are the real rules we have to play by to make any kind of logical decision.

[sandorski]

This adds nothing to the Debate. Reproduction is not an issue in this day and age. In fact, we are pretty much at Max Population as it is, so Marriage is no longer needed for Growth.

[CanadianJeff]

I would not disagree. In fact if you look at the stats the more power you give women over their own lives the less baby's you get. That's why Africa's birth rate is so huge compared to ours.

But I still can't help but debunk the bad arguments when they come up.

[CanadianJeff]

and you didn't address a thing from what you just posted there. Honestly it comes off as a "this is the way it is" speech which is how I know you didn't intend it so why don't I clarify my position.

Marriage is about two things and two things only as far as I'm concerned and one of them is setting the stage to start a family. The other is to bond two people together in a show of devotion.

Obviously your definitions differ and that's fine. If marriage means something else to you then a SSM may fit your definition. I think that's the real issue here.

How and why has the meaning of marriage changed and what does marriage mean in today's world? After that's dealt with only then can one really delve into what is and isn't a good idea with marriage.

Then again maybe I'm getting too deep into this.

[CanadianJeff]

only halfway. They don't set the stage for the creation of a family. I understand why they wish to be bonded to each other and I can respect that but I don't call SSM marriages. They fail to set the stage properly to start a family.

If starting a family isn't within your definition of marriage then SSM may well fit all your requirements. I oppose them because in this age of huge divorce rates and exploding population I don't feel that many people should be getting married unless they are dead serious about wanting to start a family.

Then again I'm also the same man who advocates that if you have sex with someone and you knock them up then your 100% legally going to get your ass handed to your if you don't pitch in 100% to helping raise the kid. If you have sex with someone you better be ready for babytime because birth control can fail.

So what do you believe?

[sandorski]

CanadianJeff wrote:

only halfway. They don't set the stage for the creation of a family. I understand why they wish to be bonded to each other and I can respect that but I don't call SSM marriages. They fail to set the stage properly to start a family.

If starting a family isn't within your definition of marriage then SSM may well fit all your requirements. I oppose them because in this age of huge divorce rates and exploding population I don't feel that many people should be getting married unless they are dead serious about wanting to start a family.

Then again I'm also the same man who advocates that if you have sex with someone and you knock them up then your 100% legally going to get your ass handed to your if you don't pitch in 100% to helping raise the kid. If you have sex with someone you better be ready for babytime because birth control can fail.

So what do you believe?

SSM solves that problem.....

[Proculation]

sandorski wrote:

CanadianJeff wrote:

only halfway. They don't set the stage for the creation of a family. I understand why they wish to be bonded to each other and I can respect that but I don't call SSM marriages. They fail to set the stage properly to start a family.

If starting a family isn't within your definition of marriage then SSM may well fit all your requirements. I oppose them because in this age of huge divorce rates and exploding population I don't feel that many people should be getting married unless they are dead serious about wanting to start a family.

Then again I'm also the same man who advocates that if you have sex with someone and you knock them up then your 100% legally going to get your ass handed to your if you don't pitch in 100% to helping raise the kid. If you have sex with someone you better be ready for babytime because birth control can fail.

So what do you believe?

SSM solves that problem.....

Or a can of Coke.

[Psudo]

sandorski wrote:

This adds nothing to the Debate. Reproduction is not an issue in this day and age. In fact, we are pretty much at Max Population as it is, so Marriage is no longer needed for Growth.

How do you calculate what max population is? Every time I estimate the maximum population we can support with existing technology and resources, I get something like 50-100 billion. Global population increases about a billion every 12 years, which means we have centuries to go before we hit the limit. But maybe my figures are totally wrong and you have a better way. Let's hear it.

This little calculator might help you get started.

lily wrote:

Marriage is NOT about reproduction. You don't need to be married to have a baby and you don't need to have a baby to be married.

Aristotle argues that marriage is about reproduction. You're right that you can have children without marriage and marriages without children. Similarly, you can have a gun without bullets and bullets without a gun. But what is the point of a gun without bullets? It may have one, but it's not the same purpose for which the gun was manufactured. By this reasoning, marriage generally is for kids even if specific marriages are not.

My point in bringing up Aristotle is his argument (his assumption, really) that legislating marriage has no other purpose than to pursue good kids. Individual marriages may dispute this principle, but it states the only reason government may care about marriages.

Aristotle considers everything on the assumption that government will and should interfere and, thus, how can they interfere best? There is an obvious libertarian counter-argument to that which applies to virtually everything he says in The Politics. But he always argues that the legislator should pursue virtues. Even if you take the legislator out of the argument, you still have to consider the "pursues virtues" aspect. A well-raised next generation is still a worthwhile goal, even from the perspective of an individual trying to decide what to choose in their own life. Raising children in a stable marriage is still a statistically effective way to pursue that goal.

You name three restrictions Aristotle puts on marriages: not too young, not too old, not related. Aristotle also mentions a fourth outside of the quoted portion, that the groom should be a certain amount older than the bride. We consider the same ideas today; we have a legal minimum age to get married and we restrict marriages between closely related individuals. We don't legally prevent the elderly from getting married, but they statistically don't get married that much anyway [source]. Also statistically, we as a society prefer the groom to be older than the bride as well (though not by as much as Aristotle prescribed) and we find it a little creepy when people marry far beyond their age. His views are not so utterly obsolete as you may think.

For the sake of argument, though, let's ignore everything Aristotle and I think and listen to lily: why besides children should a government care about marriage? What other reason is there?

sandorski wrote:

CanadianJeff wrote:

If you have sex with someone you better be ready for babytime because birth control can fail

SSM solves that problem.....

Same-sex sex avoids that problem. Same sex marriage does no more to prevent it.

[sandorski]

Well, not sure how to Calculate it, but let's face it, there's no shortage of Population or risk of extinction due to low numbers. Back in Aristotle's day "extinction" wasn't reall a concern either, but to the Greeks Population was vital to maintain Power and Independence from rivals. That is no longer a concern for us.

[Psudo]

Aristotle talks about limiting the population to keep the nation from becoming too large and unwieldy to properly manage. I think it must have been obvious even in his time that nations fall due to mismanagement far more often than they fall due to extinction.

[sandorski]

Psudo wrote:

Aristotle talks about limiting the population to keep the nation from becoming too large and unwieldy to properly manage. I think it must have been obvious even in his time that nations fall due to mismanagement far more often than they fall due to extinction.

Not surprised. He seems like a wise dude. Probably why he's known to this day.

[CanadianJeff]

That's your opinion but they have every reason to care. I don't think it's too far out of reach to say that once the basic family structure of the society falls apart everything else is soon to follow.

And if government is to have no involvement at all then one could easily start seeing incestuous and pedophile marriages occur as well. The line has to be drawn somewhere. The only difference we all have is where to draw it.

It used to be drawn where nobles and royalty could freely partake in incest with Homosexuality being a very firm no no. Now we have come full circle. It wouldn't totally amaze me to see pedophilia legal in 50 years and homosexuality falling out of line once more.