A question to supporters of Gay Marriage

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The following is a question to supporters of gay marriage, but first some context. In recent discussions about gay marriage, one phrase often used by the supporters has been "love is love". The idea being that marriage is (to supporters of gay marriage) primarily a decoration of love between two people, and the legal recognition of that fact.

My question therefore, in light of that fact, is as following:

If the only criteria for legal recognition of marriage is to do with romantic love, upon what basis would the state be able to prohibit legal recognition of polygamy or incestuous marriage?

In either of those two cases, I am sure that the participants involved would state that they have genuine romantic feelings. Is there any basis for preventing these people from also having their marriage recognised?

[Hutch Hogan]

TL;DR at the bottom of the post means he's summing it up for people who find the post too long and don't read. 

It's obvious he read the post as he quoted it and replied in the same way he's been replying since the start of this thread.  

HAVE YOU NOT EYES?

Right there, you've just lost my respect. 

Oh you! We all know that you don't respect any of us here. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

My mistake. It looked as if parts of the piece had not been responded to. I'll rectify.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Oh, by the way, if you want to hear people's respect for me.

http://nerdfighters.ning.com/forum/topics/to-vertigo-one-yes-once-a...

[God ~blogs admin ~]

Yes, assert that everyone is akin to that numpty, totally not generalizing at all.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I was simply saying that people do and have. I didn't like the implication that I'm somehow universally vilified.

[Nelson]

I didn't like the implication that I'm somehow universally vilified.

Then your reading skills need to improve because the post you replied to mentioned you having no respect for others, instead of the other way around.

'We all know that you don't respect any of us here.'

The way you replied to this post might be seen as evidential for your egotism.

Also, what's going on here. A post here seems to have been removed (the one to which Hutch replied), what's up with that? And who lost who's respect?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I respect you because I have engaged with your arguments and debates. I disagree with you, but that's not the same as disrespect.

And it's not evidence of egotism as much as it is response to victimisation, which given that there are at least three of you on here opposing me, isn't entirely unreasonable.

[Nelson]

I respect you because I have engaged with your arguments and debates. I disagree with you, but that's not the same as disrespect.

I know that. But someone mentioned "you've just lost my respect", and it appears that one or more posts have been removed from that sequence. I merely asked for a clarification.

And it's not evidence of egotism as much as it is response to victimisation, which given that there are at least three of you on here opposing me, isn't entirely unreasonable.

I do find it interesting though that your reply to a comment that says "you have no respect for us" (I'm paraphrasing) is "look, people respect me". Hutch's post was clearly not a call for people to show how much they are respected, rather it showed that Hutch feels disrespected and feels that others are disrespected as well by the same person. Since you replied about rectifying right after I assume that Hutch's post was in reply to a post of yours, this makes the sequence of posts even more remarkable, and could be interpreted as a sign of egotism.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

It's a case of misreading. I misread your post involving TL;Dr as not having read everything, which made me angry. I've never liked the phrase TL;dr anyway, as it just sounds a little childish. And then I misread Hutch's thing as being "like any of us respect you" etc.

[Nelson]

Thanks for the clarification, and it's okay that stuff can happen. I understand your issue with the tl;dr phrase, something I'll keep in mind. DFTBA.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

If you are so keen on solving the 'age quake' problem then you should be arguing for some kind of benefit directly targeted at procreation instead of bashing same-sex marriage rights for it.

I am arguing that given the age quake, it isn't a good idea to undermine the link between marriage and procreation.

You kind of need to get over your idea that marriage is primarily related to procreation because it isn't.

Anthropologists disagree. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-blankenhorn19-...

And because the two are not primarily related same-sex marriage rights do nothing to devalue a "helping" resource regarding the "age quake" problem.

 

As I said, given the agequake, the last thing we need to be doing is undermining the link between marriage and procreation.

The reference you provided about traditional marriage mentioned a small prayer for children as a part of the ceremony, that could even be excluded if it wasn't relevant, this does not sound like children being a primary part of marriage, eh.

 

Yet it can trace it's origins to rather important parts of the Bible about the command to procreate. 

Moreover, the perception of marriage has changed drastically over time, the original intent of the matter has become rather irrelevant. Not to mention that your reference deals with christian marriage, while the current discussion is about secular marriage. The two are markedly different even though one might find its origins in the other.

 

Don't move the goalposts. It was you who initially asked about traditional marriage. I answered that question.

Yes I went with you on that point for the sake of furthering the discussion, but marriage and the related benefits are not primarily about children. Once they might have been (I doubt that), but it all changed when the fire nation attacked.

 

I disagree. Marriage is something we have inherreted. Something designed to be used primarily about Children. If we start using it for something else, we shouldn't be surprised if it stops working propperly.

Indeed, because marriage is primarily about bringing these people together. It's quite interesting to note that marriage laws do not specify anything about the contents of the marriage, they only say something about how it is started and how it is ended.

 

That's because laws rarely talk about why they were initiated, but rather what they are. You don't see the laws on no fault divorce discussing the social reasoning behind their initiation.

I have not seen you saying this before, at least not as explicitly as this. So it appears that you see people as equal, but some are more equal than others.

 

No, my point of view is consistent. I am quite happy to support homosexuals ability to have children by offering them similar rights to married couples BUT unlike straight couples, their fertility is not increased by being together.

In marriage they would still be two individuals. And since marriage commonly includes a pooling of resources you're contradicting yourself now. At point of marriage they are indeed more able due to a decision to pool resources. The same is true for different-sex couples. The only difference is the means by which they can 'make' a child.

 

Yes, and it is that difference which is crucial. As I said, which you ignored. If someone can walk with or without a stick, they are more able than someone who needs a stick. In the same way, homosexual people are less able to have a child than hetrosexual couples. They can however, have the same rights that marriage offers, at the point that they start seeking a child, simply because then they fit a simmilar critera to hetrosexual couples (IE moving to a point that actually increases their fertility).

[Hutch Hogan]

Yet it can trace it's origins to rather important parts of the Bible about the command to procreate. 

Just curious, you're not one of those that believes Mary was ever-virgin, right?