argument argue about share argue how
 
argue for



pros and cons   against

 
Creds and Cruds for
egorz13 on 12-9-2009



In response to Katzwinkel from 12/5/09:
1) I agree that "marriage isn't about mechanically ejecting offspring and then chucking them into the woods to fend for themselves." Who said otherwise?
2) The benefit to society from marriage is in orderly and sheltered procreation. Of course procreation is easy, but there are many circumstances that are less than ideal for procreation - that's why we encourage procreation within the framework of marriage.
3) The fact that there are children in the world looking for a home means we should reconsider our ideas concerning adoption, not marriage.
1 Cred2 Crud


In response to elwoodlaw from 12/5/09:
1) It's not a question of treating people differently. It's a question of whether same sex marriage merits benefits and status being bestowed by society. Otherwise do what you want to do, just don't expect "official" sanction for it.
2) I think you'd be surprised to discover that opposition to same sex marriage doesn't come from just "Bible abusing rightists." You don't have to have a Bible or be of the right.
3) Regarding the sterile argument: that's a good point. However, I think society would recoil from the gross imposition on privacy that would be required by checking for sterility (I know I would). Society must weigh privacy issues vs letting some sterile people slip into the institution of marriage. But there is no corresponding invasion of privacy required for same sex couples - it's just not able to be faked or mistaken.
4) I think your assertion that "this really seems to be more of an excuse to try to indirectly, and maybe/hopefully unintentionally, be anti-gay simply because you do not like the lifestyle" is a straw man argument based on zero evidence except for your own world view.
5) I didn't imply and I don't believe in a slippery slope argument and I disagree that polygamy and incest are red herrings. Either you agree that it is ok to discriminate against certain types of relationships in determining which relationships are to receive status and privilege from society, or you do not. If you agree, then I sincerely would like to understand your criteria for deciding when it is ok to discriminate and when it is not. If youy disagree then I sincerely would like to know why you think society should be involved in marriage at all (why can't people go to a church and not bother at all with the state? why bother at all with a church? why does it need to be "official"?).
6) These are the questions that trouble many people when it comes to the issue of same sex marriage. The fact that you think it's irrelevant noise probably explains why you apparently can't understand opposition to same sex marriage except in terms of religion or bigotry.
2 Cred2 Crud


In response to juszczak from 12/5/09:
1) I don't think that anyone is pretending when it comes to this issue.
2) I agree that marriage is "the outward expression of a couple's love for each other"
3) If society derives no benefit from that outward expression, then why is society involved at all? Why do you need a license? Why do we organize legal principles around it?
4) Maybe YOU don't need an extended family or an immediate family to provide food, resources, or care for the elderly, but you're delusional if you think those circumstances are relics of a bygone age. They happen all the time.
5) Receiving benefits or status from society is not a right. Society is under no obligatiopn to provide benefits to anyone, let alone people it feels don't provide commensurate benefits in return. What benefit does society receive from same sex marriage?
2 Cred1 Crud

 
         
argue   for
© 2009 13 Guys Named Ed, LLC   •   About   •   Feedback   •   Sitemap
against   argues