Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by MrFun
Although BK has not given a satisfactory answer as to how ten percent of population will prevent the other ninety percent of population from reproducing, I do not want him to forget my other point:

Granting civil right to marry to gays and lesbians will NOT compel churches to marry gay and lesbian couples. Those couples can go to churches that would be willing to marry them, or they can go to a secular office for such a ceremony.

And in case he missed this, I would ensure that whatever we teach in school to young children about gays and lesbians would be age appropriate.

Clearly, it's more important to him to trash our civil rights in the name of his religious freedoms.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's the best you can do?

Logically, any action that results in less of the same action is illogical. If you universalise homosexuality then you get no homosexuality, which means that homosexuality is irrational.

Kant 5 Asher 0.

Why is it irrational given the fact that homosexuals do not care about the fabric of society? Why should we care if homosexuals cease to exist? All we care about is ourselves, logically. What happens after we leave is inconsequential.

I'm playing a game of logical arguments with you and you are losing badly, despite your coping mechanism of pretending you are Kant and pretending you are beating me.

Summary because you still do not comprehend: You said "if gays were truly logical..." to start your statement. I provided a truly logical argument with no morality or emotions involved, which makes most sense for the person. You don't comprehend the concept of a PURELY LOGICAL argument, which is why you're mumbling on about morality and humanity. Fail.

That's fine. Society does care though.

Kant 6 Asher 0

Am I not part of society? If society did care, how come we keep polluting at the current levels (or higher)? What does society have to do with what gay people think if they are "TRULY LOGICAL"?

Asher 291, Kant 0, Ben Kenobi NAN.

You might, but the question is not, "what is best for you, but what is best for society as a whole."

That's not what your question was, you twit.
Your statement was:

If gay people were truly logical they would understand that their own well being depends on retaining traditional marriage, not tearing it down.

I'm illustrating why, using a TRULY LOGICAL argument, it makes more sense to be in a gay marriage than a straight marriage. I'm having fun with your argumentative incompetence and you still have no idea what I'm talking about.

Logically, homosexuality is a dead end. It's great if you are young for about 10-15 years, but after that it's horrible.

Nice for you to let it slip that you think homosexuality is great at your age.

I don't what age has to do with it. I'm gay and I've got a loving long-term partner who makes me happy, why is that "horrible"?

The family of kids is going to be gaining on you every single year after you get past 15 years.

Do you not understand financial matters at all? I guarantee you that the money made from the early investments will completely trumpet any gains made by your children, which will not be given to you anyway. You're completely ****ing crazy.

Long term, society derives a benefit from kids far greater then from homosexuality.

That's not the point. Again, you do not comprehend the subject. The subject is what a TRULY LOGICAL gay man would think. To be TRULY LOGICAL, with no sense of ethics or morality or humanity, it doesn't matter what happens after we die. In terms of society today, one stands more to gain from a gay marriage than a straight marriage with children.

You seem to think it is "logical" that one would care what happens after they die. That's not a question of logic.

In the long run, kids are by far the best investment.

They are ****ing not. They're a money hole and by the time they start making money, you don't get any of it.

Kids are a MORAL and EMOTIONAL investment, not a FINANCIAL one. People who have kids expecting them to make money off of it are immensely stupid.

And you think that rebuttal is in anyway creative? This is why you suck at philosophy, because you fall into traps that have been left there.

But I don't suck at philosophy, I deride the courses for being too easy because they were ridiculously easy. And you are an example of why. The vast majority of students are people like you, you make ridiculous assumptions then refuse to see what assumptions you make. You argue in circles and you don't even realize it.

You don't seem to comprehend that your assertion that it is logical to care about what happens after you die is unsupported and ridiculous.

The simple facts are, in a TRULY LOGICAL way, gay marriage makes more sense to an individual.

If you're asking about from a BIOLOGICAL SURVIVAL sense, then you are correct that it is essential to keep making babies. Of course, you probably don't like test tube babies. But this in itself is a ridiculous argument, do you truly believe gay marriage will stop procreation?

All you arts students are the same. Not a logical or analytical bone in your gay-sex ravaged bodies...

[KrazyHorse]

I don't understand why governments don't just offload the problem to churches. Get rid of marriage entirely. Let churches marry whatever people they want.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I don't understand why governments don't just offload the problem to churches. Get rid of marriage entirely. Let churches marry whatever people they want.

It makes too much sense. They could even spin it as "giving the churches more power" for the nutjobs in the south.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I don't understand why governments don't just offload the problem to churches. Get rid of marriage entirely. Let churches marry whatever people they want.

And eliminate the more than 1,000 rights and privileges under government law that goes with marriage?

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun


And eliminate the more than 1,000 rights and privileges under government law that goes with marriage?

Could still offer civil unions if that's an issue.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MrFun


And eliminate the more than 1,000 rights and privileges under government law that goes with marriage?

The last I checked I wasn't proposing eliminating the right of private parties to enter into whatever contract they chose. And yeah, I don't see why married couples should get external legal privileges (such as tax preference) that non-married couples don't.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


The last I checked I wasn't proposing eliminating the right of private parties to enter into whatever contract they chose. And yeah, I don't see why married couples should get external legal privileges (such as tax preference) that non-married couples don't.

If you listen to Ben, it's the only reason they don't go gay. The tax benefits from marriage.

[Naked Gents Rut]

And yeah, I don't see why married couples should get external legal privileges (such as tax preference) that non-married couples don't.

It makes sense if the government wants to incentivize marriage over other coupling arrangements. Whether you want to incentivize it or not depends on how much benefit you believe society gets from marriage in this day in age, when the stability of the institution has broken down to a great extent.

Personally, I think marriage as a useful social institution is dead, but I understand why others might disagree with me.

[Jon Miller]

Married couples are happier, healthier, raise children that are more successful, and are more stable.

These are the reasons I am in favor of homosexual marriage. Not the discrimination argument.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


It makes sense if the government wants to incentivize marriage over other coupling arrangements. Whether you want to incentivize it or not depends on how much benefit you believe society gets from marriage in this day in age, when the stability of the institution has broken down to a great extent.

Personally, I think marriage as a useful social institution is dead, but I understand why others might disagree with me.

I wholeheartedly agree with this post in its entirety.

[Arrian]

Opposition to gay marriage overwhelming comes from old farts, while support largely comes from GenX, Y, and whatever the hell the current generation is. You are the one whose ideas are becoming extinct. You've just managed to have a little spurt before your demise.

Dead Cat Bounce.

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Married couples are happier, healthier, raise children that are more successful, and are more stable.

Selection effects.

Seriously.

[Jon Miller]

So you are saying that when marriage was more common, those correlations were not seen?

JM

[Arrian]

I think it could be that people who are likely to get married and stay married might also be people who are likely to be good parents, take good care of their finances, health, etc.

Bah, beaten to it.

-Arrian