Chick-Fil-A CEO posting more anti-gay comments.

[Ben Kenobi]

I know both gay and lesbian married couples here who have kids. Both sets are great parents

Are the children the product of the union of the couple?

[Elok]

From what I gather, the boycott was an attempt to 'punish' Cathy for what he said(/typed), not to prevent him form doing it.

From what I gather, their goals weren't all that well-defined in the first place. Mostly they were just pissed and wanted to hurt him somehow. But that's an ugly and unproductive attitude, and I don't want any part of that either. Classically, boycotts are intended to force a change in policy. As when the colonists boycotted British goods to force a change in tax policy, or Gandhi's boycott on...what was it, salt and cotton? I don't recall exactly, but the message was "we're not buying your crap until you give us what we want." The famous boycotts against segregation, boycotts on companies that worked with the apartheid government of South Africa, et cetera. If a boycott has any point at all, it's not just to hurt but to force a change. If it comes to that, even "punishment" is supposed to have a disincentive effect in the future, no?

[Lorizael]

BK, technology will eventually exist that will (at least) allow two women to have children together. Will your secular objection to gay marriage end then?

[Ben Kenobi]

You have said the difference is because straight sex can produce kids. That isn't always the case. So it's a simple question.

Again, the reason why some straight couples cannot have children has nothing to do with the union and everything to do with a physical infirmity. The same doesn't apply to gay couples. The coupling doesn't work the same way. Here, you have fertile men and women engaging in a union with other fertile men and women, but the men and men together do not produce children. Nor do the women and women. Which raises the question -

Why don't we see fertile gay men and women having children with their male and female partners respectively? Why doesn't the union work the same way as a man and a woman?

so logically you must believe that straight couples that can't produce children shouldn't be able to marry too.

It would be, but that's not my argument. My argument is that the union of a man and a woman can produce children. The union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot.

[regexcellent]

He could have an ethical obligation to cloning. Lots of people do.

[Ben Kenobi]

technology will eventually exist that will (at least) allow two women to have children together. Will your secular objection to gay marriage end then?

Lorizael:

I'm sure technology will eventually evolve to make it so that children will be born in factories without a mother or a father. Do you think such a thing would be a healthy society? I don't. I think children should have a mother and a father, and that the ideal outcome is that the child has contact with his biological father and mother. I realize that's not always desired or possible, but that this is an ideal.

[Elok]

Exhibit A for "complete incoherent mush." Why would Chewbacca live on Endor with the Ewoks? It doesn't make sense, ladies and gentlemen...

[Lorizael]

He could have an ethical obligation to cloning. Lots of people do.

There's no particular reason why a child of two women would have to be cloned. It would just always be female.

BK: If we can grow children in factories in a way that is objectively superior to the way children are raised now, we should definitely do it. My guess is we're pretty far off from that, however.

[Ben Kenobi]

If we can grow children in factories in a way that is objectively superior to the way children are raised now, we should definitely do it. My guess is we're pretty far off from that, however.

Well, that's the question. I don't think that a psychologist is going to come back and say that children should be raised in a factory. Perhaps I'm wrong about that and a psychologist can correct me here. I see your point here, but I hope you also see mine.

And I don't think anything I've stated here is a religious argument per se.

[Ben Kenobi]

Exhibit A for "complete incoherent mush."

What precisely is it about my argument is incoherent? Children do best with their mom and dad. Sure, there are some exceptions, but this is the ideal.

[N35t0r]

It would be, but that's not my argument. My argument is that the union of a man and a woman can produce children. The union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot.

What? A man and a woman can produce a child (wonderful wording BTW) even without getting married, so the union clearly has nothing to do with having children.

[N35t0r]

What precisely is it about my argument is incoherent? Children do best with their mom and dad.

Yeah, you're going to need better proof of that.

[Ben Kenobi]

A man and a woman can produce a child (wonderful wording BTW) even without getting married, so the union clearly has nothing to do with having children.

Are you saying that a man and a woman who do not have sex with one another should be considered married?

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah, you're going to need better proof of that.

So what's your argument here? Are you saying that it's better to dump the mother or the father and that the child will be happier not knowing his mother and father?

[snoopy369]

Well, that's the question. I don't think that a psychologist is going to come back and say that children should be raised in a factory. Perhaps I'm wrong about that and a psychologist can correct me here. I see your point here, but I hope you also see mine.

And I don't think anything I've stated here is a religious argument per se.

The occasional person does come up with this argument - that children should be raised communally. Some societies have done this (basically the kids are raised by a group of people, usually women, but not directly one-to-one with their actual mother), and some have found it successful.

Why are you all arguing with him, anyway. He's basing his opinions on religious opinions, which is not unreasonable. What's unreasonable is basing US laws on religious opinion; but we already know Ben disagrees with this. This argument should've been over long ago...