Ohio Senate Approves Gay-Marriage Ban

[Ben Kenobi]

The point is, the very notion that people's marriages are invalidated the second homosexual couples marry is laughable, unless those people married on the basis that homosexuals cannot marry.

Strawman. I do not say that marriage becomes invalidated, but rather the definition changes.

Where did I ever say marriages are all about love?

You assume, in your earlier post,

The couples who married before haven't changed their reasons, their love is not changed,

Marriage is about love, but not just love. There are other purposes, such as procreation, that this redefinition drastically affects. Decoupling marriage from procreation, will radically change the substance of the relationship.

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Asher

Thanks for the advice, Ace. It means a lot coming from you.

I wasn't answering the question for him. If you meant for him and only him to address it, why don't you PM it to him.

Must I define "public forum" for you?

Ben is probably concerned that I will be terribly offended by your answering the question and will lose my emotional balance as well as the capacity to enjoy life

[Ben Kenobi]

Incest has nothing to do with marriage - that's a sexual act.

Napoleon:

Good point. I have sloppy terminology. What I should have specified is marriage between close relations, or consanginuity. Should that be permitted by the state?

Child marriages - whenever those children become reasoning adults and can make informed decisions.

Again, this requires state intervention. You do believe that the state has a role in marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben is probably concerned that I will be terribly offended by your answering the question and will lose my emotional balance as well as the capacity to enjoy life

Napoleon:

Nah. Just a sign of respect, that's all.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Strawman. I do not say that marriage becomes invalidated, but rather the definition changes.

Okay, sorry. So the definition changes.

How does the definition change for a heterosexual couple that is married?

You assume, in your earlier post,

Marriage is about love, but not just love. There are other purposes, such as procreation, that this redefinition drastically affects. Decoupling marriage from procreation, will radically change the substance of the relationship.

Has nobody ever taught you about "lists" in the English Language? Do you not notice a comma-delimited sequence of characters there where "love" is but one of them?

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Napoleon:

Good point. I have sloppy terminology. What I should have specified is marriage between close relations, or consanginuity. Should that be permitted by the state?



Again, this requires state intervention. You do believe that the state has a role in marriage.

Consanginuity - How close are the relatives? Are you talking parent-child or third cousins? If the former than there is a convincing medical argument against it, but I personally would opt for some leeway even on that.

State intervention in marriage - what's your point? State intervenes in everything concerning children: they can't drive, can't drink, etc. As long as the state is reasonable (i.e. 21 years old to drink is clearly a stupid move), the state has a right to protect children. And yes that includes marriage along with everything else.

[Ben Kenobi]

Napoleon:

Your words, from earlier in the thread.

government shouldn't meddle in it by setting laws that forbid certain types of marriage.

And now..

State intervention in marriage - what's your point? State intervenes in everything concerning children:

You have a conflict. Clearly the state does have a right to intervene in marriage. You need a different premise to argue against the Ohio legislature.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you not notice a comma-delimited sequence of characters there where "love" is but one of them?

Yes, but I argue that it is not enough to just love someone, for that word can mean so many different things.

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Napoleon:

You have a conflict. Clearly the state does have a right to intervene in marriage. You need a different premise to argue against the Ohio legislature.

Is that really the best you can do?

Of course, my earlier statement referred to marriage between consenting adults. Or should I really say after every single phrase "As long as there is no coersion taking place, as long as the subject is a mentally capable adult, as long as they haven't broken out of jail to do it... yadda, yadda, yadda".

Can you from now on assume I say these things after every statement?

[Asher]

You missed the only important part of that post:

Okay, sorry. So the definition changes.

How does the definition change for a heterosexual couple that is married?

[Ben Kenobi]

Sure. But now you have to admit that the state does play a role in marriage.

Why should the people of Ohio have to marry heterosexuals?

No one's forcing them to marry heterosexuals. They want to marry them, so let them go ahead and do so.

[Ben Kenobi]

How does the definition change for a heterosexual couple that is married?

Already answered. Read my earlier post on procreation.

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure. But now you have to admit that the state does play a role in marriage.

State has a role in everything concerning children. That has nothing to do with the issue.

No one's forcing them to marry heterosexuals. They want to marry them, so let them go ahead and do so.

No one's forcing them to marry homosexuals. They want to marry them, so let them go ahead and do so.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Already answered. Read my earlier post on procreation.

This post?

Marriage is about love, but not just love. There are other purposes, such as procreation, that this redefinition drastically affects. Decoupling marriage from procreation, will radically change the substance of the relationship.

So, remember you're trying to show how my marrying my BF affects everyone, including married straight couples.

So are you saying because gays can marry these married straight couples cannot procreate?

Further, what about married couples who do not have children? There are many of them.

What about gay parents with children of their own? Or bisexuals with children from a previous marriage? What about people who adopt children?

There are countless holes in this argument.

I suggest you try again.

[Napoleon I]

Going to bed. I'll check back on this thread tomorrow