I debate a college Democrat.

[Wiglaf]

I wonder where's the dignity:

- Britney Spears get married for 6 hours in order to have sex (with a man), or
- two old Women who loved each other and lived together for the last 40 years finally get married.

First of all, marriage is open to abuse. No need for the government to endorse further abuse.

And yes, gay people can love each other. But because homosexuals universally seek to discourage a culture of love tied with procreation, and the institution that provides and has provided for centuries for the healthy American family, the government need not endorse their practice.

Especially when their practice involves sodomy and degenerative and fruitless lustfulness, in many cases.

[Whaleboy]

Wiglaf... you remind me of what Bush would be like if he posted!

[Wiglaf]

Cool!

[Wiglaf]

Finally, today, marriage has completely lost its bond with reproduction,

What?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Wiglaf... you remind me of what Bush would be like if he posted!

Why did you have to say something he would take as a compliment?

[Wiglaf]

Hey Sir Robin is back.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Especially when their practice involves sodomy and degenerative and fruitless lustfulness, in many cases.

I am 23; I am currently having a "degenerative and fruitless lustfulness" with my girlfriend for the time being. It doesn't hinder us from having projects of living together, and having kids, once this becomes timely.

Yet, for the time being, all sex I have with my girlfriend is utterly "fruitless" as we make a point of not having kids before the end of her studies.

Does it mean we are not worthy of marrying, since we have sex in an avowed non-reproducive way?

[Wiglaf]

You are suggesting that marriage is predominantly an institution of fruitless lustfulness? That's brilliant

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
You are suggesting that marriage is predominantly an institution of fruitless lustfulness?

Yes.

I am suggesting that marriage is -since ~the middle of the 20th century- primarily a matter of love between two people.These people, as a token of their love, have sex, although it doesn't systematically lead to the birth of a child (what we calll "family planning").
Sometimes, these people want to go through a major common undertaking, which is having a child. Yet, most of the sex a married couple will have, is non-reproductive. This is why modern families have between one and three children, rather than 5 or 6 like in the 18th century.

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
You are suggesting that marriage is predominantly an institution of fruitless lustfulness? That's brilliant

I resent your portrayal of two people comitting to each other in a loving relationship as "fruitless". Marriage is about the union of individuals, not the mere act of reproduction. Worrying about having marriage for the explicit sake of procreation is more profane than having marriage for the sake of love between two people.

And once again, you 're worry about something which doesn't matter. Explain to me YOUR stake in this issue and how gay rights effects YOU.

[Wiglaf]

Yes.

I am suggesting that marriage is -since ~the middle of the 20th century- primarily a matter of love between two people.

If you cannot make the distinction that marriage is 1000000000000 times the procreative institution that homosexual marriages would be, then you are not worth talking to.

Worrying about having marriage for the explicit sake of procreation is more profane than having marriage for the sake of love between two people.

I think we can all agree that marriage is for BOTH LOVE AND PROCREATION, not necessarily one or the other "explicitly" as you just said. The moment you cut out the procreation bit is the moment you can justify marriage with anything, and it's also the moment you change one of the primary functions of marriage (to promote at least some sort of family structure etc)

And once again, you 're worry about something which doesn't matter. Explain to me YOUR stake in this issue and how gay rights effects YOU.

This is like saying, who cares about genocide in Ethiopia if it doesn't affect me personally. In fact, why debate anything if it doesn't directly affect you.

Even so, the fundamental institution of marriage is one of the defining aspects of civilization. I'd say it's worth defending.

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by MrFun



Why did you have to say something he would take as a compliment?

I'm going to hate myself now for as long as I live

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

I think we can all agree that marriage is for BOTH LOVE AND PROCREATION, not necessarily one or the other "explicitly" as you just said. The moment you cut out the procreation bit is the moment you can justify marriage with anything, and it's also the moment you change one of the primary functions of marriage (to promote at least some sort of family structure etc)

Now you're in a paradox. It's not necessairly about one or the other, but I can't cut out procreation for particular marriages?! You're taking two distinct stances here. Then you having something ELSE which is weird, promoting "some sort of family structure". Well, by all means then we shouldn't be discouraging gay marriage but rather encouraging gay marriage AND adoption. Even if by your raw instinct you hate gay marriage, isn't taking an impoverished baby from China and giving him to LOVING gay parents in the United States better than leaving him to rot in unsanitary conditions in China?!

This is like saying, who cares about genocide in Ethiopia if it doesn't affect me personally. In fact, why debate anything if it doesn't directly affect you.

Even so, the fundamental institution of marriage is one of the defining aspects of civilization. I'd say it's worth defending.

I'll accept that it bothers you on an ethical level. But then you STILL have a problem justifying your interest in this particular issue. How is it possible that you actually care more about this issue rather than the tremendous actual suffering that is taking place in the world? Are you honestly going to sit here and argue to me that the more noble fight is against homosexual marriage or is it more important that we raise awareness about the horrible human rights violations taking place in Pakistan?

Maybe it's best just to hand gay people their civil rights and fight the battles that actually matter.

[Wiglaf]

Now you're in a paradox. It's not necessairly about one or the other, but I can't cut out procreation for particular marriages?!

The occassional marriage, sure. If one parent can't have kids, then obviously that is a relatively rare exception to the procreation rule.

To use that as a justification to let homosexuals invade the practice and further degrade the institution to MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE seriously de-value propagation is absurd.

Maybe it's best just to hand gay people their civil rights and fight the battles that actually matter.

It's called multi-tasking. You can be both against gay marriage AND do something else too, you know.

[Whaleboy]

Wig, what does it matter to you anyway? Gay people don't oblige you to be sodomised along with them? Or am I missing something?