[Vision2020] Same sex marriage

[Paul Rumelhart]

On 07/15/2012 06:28 PM, Scott Dredge wrote:
> Paul / Gary - can either of you give it a shot at playing devil's 
> advocate?  And by that, I mean a good shot, not just some half assed, 
> weak, grasping at straws attempt.
>
> -Scott

I really can't.  If I had to attack gay marriage, I would do it by 
attacking the very concept of marriage as a whole.  It's a religious 
institution that has no place in a presumed secular society.  It's 
formed straight out of tradition, and the world has moved on.  Every 
secular benefit given to married couples should be individually 
scrutinized in order to determine if it could in fact be given out to 
others as well as married couples.  Why shouldn't your best friend be 
able to make medical decisions on your behalf if you are incapacitated, 
if it's been setup that way before-hand?  Why shouldn't any number of 
people be able to sign up to jointly care for a child, receiving tax 
benefits in exchange?  And so on.

Gay marriages would be just as wrong as... non-gay marriages.

Paul

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 10:46:06 -0700
> From: kmmos1 at frontier.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Same sex marriage
>
> On 7/15/2012 4:37 AM, Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
>     Sorry, Ken, but that is one of the silliest arguments I have
>     heard. Marriage has nothing to do with if people have children or not.
>
>
> Marriage has to do with, among other things, with whether people have 
> social permission to procreate. Same-sex marriage implies such 
> permission is not granted to individuals within that relationship.
>
>     You can be married and have no children and be not married and
>     have 10 children.
>
>
> Of course. Physical biology is not prevented by marriage or its absence.
>
>     Many same sex couples can, do, will, and want to have children,
>     and make damn good parents too.
>
>
> Likewise true.
>
>     It is actually easier to have more children if you are NOT in a
>     monogamous relationship for both genders.
>
>
> If a person lacks a spouse who would disapprove of extramarital 
> sexuality, and if that person cares not whether pregnancy results from 
> personal sexual activity, then more children may result.
>
>     A man is more able to impregnate more women, and a woman would be
>     more likely to get pregnant with more men.
>
>
> Marriage may have a counter-intuitive prophylactic effect as a result 
> of each partner encouraging more responsibility from the other without 
> regard to partner gender.
>
> More irresponsible, less thoughtful, people may cause more pregnancies 
> without regard to partner gender if they are not monogamous. If they 
> are monogamous fewer pregnancies will result within same-sex couples, 
> whether or not they are married.
>
>     People should not, or be socially engineered to marry a person of
>     a gender they are not attracted to, that is unfair to one or both
>     of them.
>
>
> I am not suggesting unwanted marriage. Remaining single is just as 
> available an option.
>
>     As well as others that could be deprived of their true affections
>     and love.
>     Marriage should ALWAYS be about two consenting adults who love
>     each other.
>
>
> How romantic. And in many cases, how unrealistic. Over the centuries 
> marriage has more often been an arrangement implementing social 
> practicalities rather than love. Given the intractable societal 
> burdens of overpopulation, societal concerns may well trump personal 
> preferences for multiple reasons -- food sharing, housing sharing, and 
> many facets of more efficient societal use of many limited resources.
>
>     And nothing else. People deserve nothing less.
>
>
> Whether or not our current mixture of preferences will survive 
> increasing population pressures is both uncertain and unlikely.
>
>
> Ken
>
> ======================================================= List services 
> made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the 
> Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com 
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
>   List services made available by First Step Internet,
>   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                 http://www.fsr.net
>            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120717/2133cc7d/attachment-0001.html>