[Kjorteo]

Obligatory filler intro sentence so that the quotes don't misalign.

Psudo wrote:

Actions behind closed doors are not inherently harmless, so homosexual activity behind closed doors is not inherently harmless.

They might not be automatically harmless just by the sheer power of some straw-man "everything behind closed doors including racketeering is harmless" rule, but they are harmless on their own merit. Would you care to explain why they wouldn't be? It's kind of hard to prove a negative, so if there's anything specifically wrong with fully consensual homosexual acts behind closed doors, please enlighten me.

Psudo wrote:

The definition of "adults" in the sense of "mature enough to legally consent to sex" is an arbitrary age limit that has practically nothing to do with mental, social, or emotional maturity. "They're all adults" is an argument with inherent flaws.

By that logic, you have two choices. Either explain how you would determine who's allowed to do things like drink, vote, own firearms, drive, watch R-rated movies, acquire porn, and serve in the Armed Forces, or explain why consensual homosexual acts are the only situation in which reaching the legal age of adulthood doesn't seem to be good enough.

Psudo wrote:

A marriage license is a legal reward from the government in return for perceived benefits to the society the government represents. Thus, to receive a marriage license, the marriage should be perceived to benefit society.

I'm sensing a rapidly-approaching stalemate here, as we are simply in complete and total disagreement over this. Marriage is not something that should be justified to anyone except the person you're marrying and the people you invited to the wedding. The last time society itself had any claim in the purpose or justification for a couple was in an Ayn Rand novel.

Psudo wrote:

USCAdad wrote:

Should these things be denied everyone?

Maybe not, but the certainly shouldn't be licensed.

But not for heterosexuals, because they can breed? I don't know if you know this, but we don't really need any more population surges for the time being. Even if that wasn't true, you've failed to address the issue of heterosexual couples who either can't have or simply do not want children. Are they still providing enough justification for your great society to allow them to exist? They shouldn't, by your logic, but you haven't seemed to challenge them yet.

Psudo wrote:

USCAdad wrote:

I'm not even bringing up birth control.

Does anyone else see why this sentence is funny?

No.

Psudo wrote:

Marriage, no. Marriage licenses, yes. If you want to make an oath between you and your mate, no one's stopping you. If you want it legally recognized and sanctioned by a government, you have to demonstrate some benefit to society.

Again, I simply and strongly disagree here, and am quickly realizing neither of us will make much progress on this issue.

[Psudo]

.

Kjorteo wrote:

Psudo wrote:

USCAdad wrote:

I'm not even bringing up birth control.

Does anyone else see why this sentence is funny?

No.

In declaring he won't mention it, he mentions it. The sentence is self-defeating.

Kjorteo wrote:

[I] am quickly realizing neither of us will make much progress on this issue.

Agreed. Continuing the discussion is pointless.

--
Many edits to experiment with the formatting of the first quote. That's truly annoying.

[Les-R]

Pseudo, by making the argument that homosexuality is not inherently harmless you are by implication making the argument that homosexuality is inherently Harmful. I can see two reasons for bringing up this point in this debate.

A) You honestly believe that homosexuality is inherently wrong, despite there being no rational basis for this belief. Or..

B) You argue the point purely for argument's sake.

I'm not sure which one is worse.


I will not argue the social benefit of marriage licenses, since marriage licenses in and of themselves were never the focus of this debate nor of the pro gay-marriage argument in general. Marriage licenses provide essential protections for a society, like ensuring that enough people of the 'correct' race/religion/ethnicity propegate into the next generation to preserve said society (Government involvment in sanctioning marriage was originaly envisioned as an effort to discourage inter-racial marriage.) But that's neither here nor there.


The whole Point of the Gay-Marriage debate from the standpoint of the pro gay-marriage viewpoint is that heterosexual pair-bonds are given a special status above that of homosexual pair-bonds and this is seen as unfair. Balancing the two either by elevating homosexual pair-bonds to the level of heterosexual pair-bonds or by voiding the current privalaged status of homosexual pair-bonds does not matter so long as they are some-way brought into balance.

And you still haven't answered anyone on the claims of, "Well if Marriage sanctions from the Government is all about procreation, why are straight couples who are post-menopausel, impotent/infertile or willfull non-breeders allowed the same privalaged marital status?"

[JJ]

And, to repeat, homosexual couples CAN, in fact, father/bear/raise children.

[gattsuru]

JJ:
Given the increased risks of multiple issues, genetic and otherwise formative, from IVF (the only method that comes to mind of producing children when only one sex is represented), I doubt it's in society's best interests to promote such a thing.

The alternative option, adoption, does show a societal good, but one that is already subsidized on its own matters and missives.

Les-R:

It's quite possible to argue against a thing without any rational basis at all, and still be providing a strong argument. To take the most common bogey-man, there is no societal or even specie-wide disadvantage to non-reproductive incest (other than taking potential contributors out of the gene pool, something we have no problem with in either the case of permissive sterilization or total homosexuality). I'm personally opposed to this : it quite simply squicks my ick. But the only big arguments against the behavior are that of increased risk of genetic malformations, an art completely shot down in days of (mostly) effective birth control.

As to why one might operate against homosexual non-reproductive marriages but not heterosexual non-reproductive marriages, there is always the limited government viewpoint: the loss of privacy required to demonstrate reproductivity or non-reproductivity in heterosexuals is not acceptable, while the base assumption for a male-male or female-female coupling is non-reproductivity.

I don't personally think it's an important argument compared to the alternatives, but it's at least logically consistent.

[Psudo]

Les-R wrote:

Pseudo, by making the argument that homosexuality is not inherently harmless you are by implication making the argument that homosexuality is inherently Harmful.

That is untrue. By making the argument that homosexuality is not inherently harmless, I'm asking for a new argument that it is inherently harmless. If you have no such rebuttal, that suggests homosexuality is potentially harmful. (Potentially as opposed to inherently.)

And while it's a very minor point, my name contains no 'e'. It's not the word 'pseudo', it just looks very similar.

Les-R wrote:

I will not argue the social benefit of marriage licenses, since marriage licenses in and of themselves were never the focus of this debate nor of the pro gay-marriage argument in general.

I disagree. As you mention, there are two equal-gay-marriage arguments: marriage licenses for homosexuals too, or the ban of marriage licenses altogether. The value of the licenses themselves are, thus, inherently relevant to the gay marriage debate: do you prefer society act to symbolically devalue heterosexual marriage by removing legal recognition of that status, or symbolically promote homosexual coupling as a socially beneficial, licensed behavior?

Les-R wrote:

And you still haven't answered anyone on the claims of, "Well if Marriage sanctions from the Government is all about procreation, why are straight couples who are post-menopausel, impotent/infertile or willfull non-breeders allowed the same privalaged marital status?"

First, procreation defines the minimum difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriage, not the total value of marriage. (For this reason, I don't oppose contracts or ceremonies between gay couples. Their coupling has value, it just hasn't yet been proven to me that they have the same value as a heterosexual marriage.)

Second, non-procreating heterosexual couples are not absolutely defined. Any legal definition of "infertile" would have the same problems I associate with the definition of "adult" or "mentally competent". The law has a very crappy way of converting analogue variables into booleans. This is even more true of "willful non-breeders", who cannot be legally defined because they can change their mind at any time. If one trusts Occam, simplicity is preferable to complexity.

Third, this is an argument for expansion of governmental regulative authority, namely regulation of marriages. For an entirely other set of reasons, I oppose such authoritarianism. (Actually, while I still find it insufficient, lack of government authority is the most persuasive argument I've heard for removing government from marriage completely.)

Fourth, your above argument is minimizing the difference without any possibility of removing it from existence. Without adultery or medical procedures, the possibility of a homosexual couple creating a pregnancy is zero. Even heterosexuals with major fertility problems have a better chance. Yes, there is a subset of straight marriages that generate zero pregnancies. Yet a single pregnancy from a heterosexual couple still outnumbers all possible (non-adulterous, non-surgical) pregnancies from all the homosexual couples that will ever exist. The difference simply exists. Should society/government/law ignore it's existence? If so, why?

I suspect, however, that this argument will be (if it has not already been) reduced to "It's too small a difference to matter." "No it's not." "Yes it is." In such situations of philosophical stalemate, a democratic government rightly falls back on the will of the people. Some ballot initiative or representative legislation on the issue will and should act as a substitute for proof.

(Yes, I'm aware that counting pregnancies isn't equal to comparing morality. I like using math as a metaphor. I'm not suggesting the numbers are a perfect description of morality. It's just a metaphor.)

[Les-R]

To come-out against one thing is to imply being for it's opposite in the case of a plus/minus question, such as wether or not homosexuality is harmless. You already agreed with me that the topic of the whys and wherefors of homosexuality were irrelevant to the debate and then went-on to argue a throw-away comment at the end of my discussion on that topic as part of proving my point and ran with it onto what I saw as another irrelevant tangent.

But we're just arguing in circles now, let's cut the BS.

Psudo? You appear to be arguing for the status-quo reguarding gay-marriage from an analytical approach based on precieved social benefit. I am arguing against that status-quo from the standpoint of marriage being between two people and not between two people and society's greater good and your arguments offend me. You are arguing coldly and rationaly about something that is inherently irrational, Love, and that offends me. Your choice of wording in the above and associating 'Value' with marriage and intimating that one type of marriage can and should have a higher 'Value' than another offends me, and it no doubt offends many others in the pro gay-marriage side of the debate which is why there's so much ranting and raving on this subject.

[Psudo]

If you'd like, I'm willing to concede that I am arguing rationally while you argue emotionally. I'm not sure that helps your position.

I have not sought to offend, and I am sorry you feel offense. In all my discussion of "value", I am offering a personal perception of moral value. As you do not agree, you are free to dismiss and ignore me. Considering me a fascist may help you dismiss my position. I will not be offended. I find that my being offended distracts me from rational analysis and weakens my position, a trade-off that is not in my best interest.

Regardless of appearances and despite the fact we could not find some consensus position, I wish the best for you.

[Diomedes]

It turns out that the U.S. is closer to Jefferson's image of the world after all.

Proposed in the Virginia legislature in 1779:

"Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least"

You guessed it, T.J.

[Calmypal]

You have to remember that he was trying to reduce the penalty from death.