Are there any secular arguments against gay marriage?

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46172077]That might explain why your arguments are so unconvincing[/QUOTE]

To anyone holding to a subjective moral system any moral argument should be factually unconvincing because it has no objective basis unless you already agree with the subjective premises.

[QUOTE]No just changing marriage as our world changes.

An entirely rational thing to do.[/QUOTE]

So what's changed in society in order to warrant it? Marriage and homosexuality have both been around and prevalent for thousands of years.

[editline]7th October 2014[/editline]

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46170583]or that homosexual marriages can't create offspring, despite not being true nowadays, with 7billion people in the world are we really worried about some couples not producing offspring?[/QUOTE]

Also, about this: the moment that a society stops having children is the moment that that society starts to die off. Values and ideas need to be perpetuated or other cultures will simply take over. Sure, there are lots of people on the planet, but guess where the vast majority of those people are coming from? They're in cultures who, ironically, don't agree with things like gay marriage. At this rate the entirety of western culture will die off in 3 to 4 generations. They almost unanimously don't have the required birth rate to replace their population.

Having children and successfully passing on a societies ideals and values is of preeminent important to any society that wants to continue.

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=sgman91;46173910]To anyone holding to a subjective moral system any moral argument should be factually unconvincing because it has no objective basis unless you already agree with the subjective premises.

So what's changed in society in order to warrant it? Marriage and homosexuality have both been around and prevalent for thousands of years.[/QUOTE]

Oh right I forgot that society today, both in terms of technology, and culturally that we're living in the same world as Ancient Rome and we should keep the same rules.

Your view point is subjective. So is mine. We're able to do this by having metrics, thoughts, ideas, that add up to more complicated ideas.

[editline]7th October 2014[/editline]

[QUOTE=sgman91;46173910]

Also, about this: the moment that a society stops having children is the moment that that society starts to die off. Values and ideas need to be perpetuated or other cultures will simply take over. Sure, there are lots of people on the planet, but guess where the vast majority of those people are coming from? They're in cultures who, ironically, don't agree with things like gay marriage. At this rate the entirety of western culture will die off in 3 to 4 generations. They almost unanimously don't have the required birth rate to replace their population.[/QUOTE]

So you just equated having kids with disagreeing with gay marriage.

Those two ideas don't actually go hand in hand. You can have kids and support gay marriage. There's nothing that would stop this.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46173943]Oh right I forgot that society today, both in terms of technology, and culturally that we're living in the same world as Ancient Rome and we should keep the same rules.[/QUOTE]

So if anything changes, then everything should change? That doesn't even make sense. Having new technology and different culture has nothing to do with the idea of marriage. History has clearly shown us that marriage has stayed fairly constant through massive upheavals in both technology and culture.

[QUOTE]Your view point is subjective. So is mine. We're able to do this by having metrics, thoughts, ideas, that add up to more complicated ideas.[/QUOTE]

I don't really see any meaning in this. Being more complicated has nothing to do with relevance or importance.

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=sgman91;46173971]So if anything changes, then everything should change? That doesn't even make sense. Having new technology and different culture has nothing to do with the idea of marriage. History has clearly shown us that marriage has stayed fairly constant through massive upheavals in both technology and culture.[/QUOTE]

So nothing should change. Culturally speaking, nothing should change.

How can you determine when things should change? when is change correct in your book? It staying consistent then doesn't mean much. Things change slowly. They don't have to happen all the time and constantly to everything.

What I hear when you say this is that there can be no time where change is right, if it's change you don't like because it's not a traditional view. But I don't see why your traditional view is so much "better" than mine, like you argue it is.

[QUOTE]I don't really see any meaning in this. Being more complicated has nothing to do with relevance or importance.[/QUOTE]

Oh right so you do believe your view is objective.

I can't argue with that, you believe you have the backing of the universe on your side, the very nature of reality is defined in a way that agrees with you and your views explicitly. There can be no argument made that could convince you of anything as you hold views you consider to be objective.

Acting like subjective ideas cannot be discussed by people rationally is ludicrous.

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46169956]Because I rationed that that view was better by my own personal metric. Wow, that's.. Impossible? No, wait, it's normal.[/QUOTE]

What to you made it better?

[QUOTE]Nice. Insult after insult to all those that think subjective morality is possible. But that's okay, you have so called objective reasoning as to why that is.

You can entirely reasonably disagree with someone using a set of beliefs and metrics that you use to determine your own belief. Sure, it's not "Objective", but it's not irrational.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]I'll take what you said down below and use it here. "How?"[/QUOTE]

It was not meant as an insult, I'm just expressing how it seems to me when you claim you have a subjective morality, but treat as if it is objective. How else could you claim a belief to be subjective and yet act as if it were objective and not fit into either of the two explanations I mentioned?

[QUOTE]That's not really an argument against it being how things are anyways.[/QUOTE]

True, I'm more arguing that subjective morals as they are employed today do not actually work.

[QUOTE]So there is no way you can be wrong basically? Nice. this is preaching. Not arguing.

Sure, I don't value them the same using my subjective metric. Just like YOU DON'T VALUE THEM THE SAME ON YOUR SUBJECTIVE METRIC THAT YOU CALL OBJECTIVE. Wow.[/QUOTE]

If morality is subjective, then there is no particular view that should be expressed in public policy as it would affect many people with different views (all of which are equal in value). Just because you think people ought to hold your ideals does not mean there is any rational ground to express those ideals on the civic scale (from a subjective perspective of course).

[QUOTE]So not only am I, according to you, incapable of changing my opinions, discussing them, I hold an inconsisent view based on the simple fact it's subjective. Where as you, again, can do whatever you please because you have an objective view point.

Thanks, you are readily clarifying that I am actually not allowed to discuss with you and that you're right and that's all there is to it.[/QUOTE]

In that particular part of the post I mistyped, I meant to say "Also just because I'm not going to change my mind does not mean I am incapable of supporting my view or criticizing yours."

Anyway, your view is not inconsistent because it is subjective, your view is inconsistent because you express your moral standpoint as if it were objective, but claim it is subjective.

[QUOTE]SUre, it's the only way. Except you hold subjective views you call objective. That's it.[/QUOTE]

Are you going to respond to my other claim?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12]Once you institute a subjective moral system, morality becomes whatever the most socially / politically influential people want it to be.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Because it's part of my view that no one should be held back from being happy if they're not hurting anyone else with their actions. Oh wait shit sorry I forgot I'm incapable of holding consisent views.[/QUOTE]

It is also part of your view that no moral view is worth more than another, so how can you rationally support the elevation of one view to legal status over others?

[QUOTE]It's just an argument that makes you the righteous one and the rest of us too stupid to see the forest from the trees UNLESS, we share YOUR specific morality which is "objective".[/QUOTE]

I'm not trying to call anyone stupid, or to portray myself as righteous.

[QUOTE]Where did you say why your morality is purely objective in a way that no one can argue with?(Not just in your view they can't argue it, if it's objectively true then there can be no intelligent thoughts that disagree with you)[/QUOTE]

I don't recall being asked to provide unquestionable proof that my moral system is objective. In any case, you'd be hard pressed to find proof of anything that no one could argue against, that's simply not a reasonable request.

You cannot directly disprove objective morality, you can however try and reveal that it does not work for the betterment of mankind, thus discrediting it (as I am doing in a broader sense in reference to subjective morality).

[QUOTE]So if it comes to objects, there is no "Objective" truth about it?[/QUOTE]

I would argue that they objectively exist, but the measure of pleasure derived from a specific food is not defined by some objectively existing scale, If you attempt to make such a scale you will quickly find that it excludes many people completely.

I'm not sure what you're getting at in trying to argue for taste having objectively defined measure like morality, wouldn't the existence of other objective standards simply make my position seem more reasonable to you?

[QUOTE]So, when you hold those views, it's justified and reasonable, but I, subjectively hold very similar views, and i'm an inconsistent and irrational person because I chose the metric consciously and you didn't conciously choose that metric and still think you're objectively right?[/QUOTE]

Of course I chose to work under my moral system at some point, the fact that I have to choose to follow it does not interfere with its objectivity.

Also I have already stated why I think that your view is inconsistent:

[QUOTE=bIgfaTwOrM12]Anyway, your view is not inconsistent because it is subjective, your view is inconsistent because you express your moral standpoint as if it were objective, but claim it is subjective.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]My views are based on immaterial concepts as well. But, why is it YOU are the arbiter of what is and isn't right and wrong and capable of being held rationally? Why are YOU the only one in this discussion(Unless someone with your moral view comes in too) that actually has the ability to say "Well this is rational and this isn't" without even a second thought? And you say I'm fucking unflinching.[/QUOTE]

If you believe your views are based on independently existing immaterial concepts, how can you possibly say they are subjective? It sounds to me like you're taking all the properties of objective morality and trying to fit them into subjective morality, it just doesn't work.

I'm not claiming to be an objective observer, but one can clearly see the contradiction in holding a view that you call subjective as you treat it as if it were objective.

[QUOTE]Why can I NOT discuss things in the way you have spent two posts now telling me I CAN'T discuss these things logically, but yet you, you can do whatever you want? I'm confused and you haven't given ANY non circular reasoning as to why you get this gift. I didn't say your view MUST be objective to be discussed, now you're putting your words in my mouth. I'm saying your view IS subjective. It's not objective as you constantly claim.[/QUOTE]

Miss-typing again, what I meant to ask was:

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12]Can you state exactly why my view must necessarily be subjective if I am capable of discussing it?

If I can discuss my existence with you, does that mean that my existence is subjective?[/QUOTE]

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46173999]So nothing should change. Culturally speaking, nothing should change.

How can you determine when things should change? when is change correct in your book? It staying consistent then doesn't mean much. Things change slowly. They don't have to happen all the time and constantly to everything.

What I hear when you say this is that there can be no time where change is right, if it's change you don't like because it's not a traditional view. But I don't see why your traditional view is so much "better" than mine, like you argue it is.[/QUOTE]

Change for the sake of change is stupid. There is no time that things "should change." They should change when society is bettered by the change or when contradictions are found between the basic ideals of a society and it's actual culture actions, such as saying that all people are endowed with inalienable rights, and then denying those rights to an entire subset of people. (slavery)

[QUOTE]Oh right so you do believe your view is objective.[/QUOTE]

Of course I do. If I didn't, then I wouldn't be trying to argue for it. The part that I don't get is that you both believe both my view and your view to be subjective and yet you continue to vehemently argue for the correctness of yours.

[QUOTE]I can't argue with that, you believe you have the backing of the universe on your side, the very nature of reality is defined in a way that agrees with you and your views explicitly. There can be no argument made that could convince you of anything as you hold views you consider to be objective.

Acting like subjective ideas cannot be discussed by people rationally is ludicrous.[/QUOTE]

Calling something ludicrous doesn't make it so. If the very reasoning for an idea is personal and not equally applicable to everyone (subjective), then that reasoning won't be logically compelling to other people who don't hold the same personal (subjective) assumptions.

[Last or First]

[QUOTE=sgman91;46171733]No, I'm saying that good and correctly working marriage is fundamental to a successful society and that messing with the basics of what it entails may have much further reaching consequences than anyone can even imagine.

[editline]6th October 2014[/editline]

Here's an analogy to another fundamental societal definition: Let us say that men started a movement to force all references to "mother' to be gender neutral because it isn't fair that men don't get to be mothers even though they love and raise their child as well. By doing this they aren't arguing to open up who gets to be a mother. They are attempting to fundamentally change what it means to be a mother. This would have massively far reaching consequences. There would no longer be a legal or societal idea to differentiate the female who birthed the child and the unique connection that exists between that woman and her child.

In the same way we are fundamentally changing what marriage is.* It no longer has the end goal of being a safe place to raise children and pass on family values. By doing this we are taking away the one societal union that fosters this absolutely key goal of society.

*Note: I don't believe same-sex marriage to be the only force pushing this change. The entire idea of marriage being based on nothing more than love is just as detrimental.[/QUOTE]
Men already have a word for that, it's called "parent". They also have a gender specific one, "father".
Being a mother (especially a "birth mother") is an objective thing.
Marriage, on the other hand, is an institution explicitly defined by humans. It can change, and has changed over the years. So your analogy doesn't apply at all.

Marriage is about love now. You can't use an old definition of marriage to justify it staying the same [I]when it hasn't stayed the same[/I].

[QUOTE=sgman91;46171892]Marriage, as an institution, is inherently unfair. It incentivizes certain people who choose specific life choices and punishes everybody else. If anything, it sounds like you are making an argument for having no marriage at all.[/QUOTE]
"X is unfair, deal with it" is never a convincing argument for your side. In fact, it's quite the opposite: you're providing support for the other side that's saying it's unfair.
How would marriage work for single people, anyway? "You and yourself are now family"? "You will now change your last name to your last name"? "You can share your money with yourself"? "You can visit yourself in the hospital"?
Saying marriage is unfair because it doesn't help single people is like saying school is unfair because it doesn't teach people who decide not to go.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46173910]So what's changed in society in order to warrant it? Marriage and homosexuality have both been around and prevalent for thousands of years.[/quote]
Society has become more accepting of homosexuality in recent years. That's what changed.
Just like how when society became more accepting of racial equality, marriage changed to allow interracial marriage.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46173910]Also, about this: the moment that a society stops having children is the moment that that society starts to die off. Values and ideas need to be perpetuated or other cultures will simply take over. Sure, there are lots of people on the planet, but guess where the vast majority of those people are coming from? They're in cultures who, ironically, don't agree with things like gay marriage. At this rate the entirety of western culture will die off in 3 to 4 generations. They almost unanimously don't have the required birth rate to replace their population.

Having children and successfully passing on a societies ideals and values is of preeminent important to any society that wants to continue.[/QUOTE]
Society isn't going to fall apart and die off because of gay marriage. Previously straight people aren't going to suddenly get married to people of their own sex for no reason and stop having children.
Western birthrates have fallen, but that's because the necessity for children has fallen due to technological and societal advancement. It's no longer necessary to have a male heir, you don't need your children to support you when you're older, infant fatality rates are lower, et cetera. The birthrates haven't fallen much, anyway. The amount of people will start to decline, but not drastically, only by a minimal amount.

sgman and bigfatworm, you guys seem to have some problem with the word "subjective". Subjective doesn't mean meaningless and random. It just means that it will change from person to person, because it's not grounded as some physical reality, but rather as a form of reasoning or taste. You can still argue about subjective things, it's just based on logic and empathy rather than numbers and observable truths. It still can [I]use[/I] the latter (such as when arguing about which economic policy is better), but it's mainly focused on something more immaterial (to continue with economic policies, which numbers are more important).

By the way, how can you prove that your morality is [I]the[/I] objective morality? Even if you say "due to my religion / beliefs", that's still subjective. You may call it objective, but unless if you have some physical and inherent proof, it's subjective.
[quote] In any case, you'd be hard pressed to find proof of anything that no one could argue against, that's simply not a reasonable request.[/quote]
Ice is less dense than water.
Sure, an insane or ignorant person could argue against it, but they would be objectively wrong.
That's the difference between something being objective and subjective: physical proof.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=Last or First;46174570]Men already have a word for that, it's called "parent". They also have a gender specific one, "father".
Being a mother (especially a "birth mother") is an objective thing.
Marriage, on the other hand, is an institution explicitly defined by humans. It can change, and has changed over the years. So your analogy doesn't apply at all.[/QUOTE]

Until very recently marriage was also an "objective thing." No one even considered marriage being between two people of the same sex because that simply wasn't what marriage was. The idea of marriage being between men and women has almost literally never changed throughout all of human history and cultures. Even polygamous marriages recognized that the man was married to many women, but that the women were not married to each other.

[QUOTE]Marriage is about love now. You can't use an old definition of marriage to justify it staying the same [I]when it hasn't stayed the same[/I].[/QUOTE]

It still isn't just about love. If it were, then government would have no need to regulate it. People are free to love each other without being married. Admittedly, it is going in that direction though. There are quite a few hardcore libertarians that argue for the dissolution of marriage all-together.

[QUOTE]"X is unfair, deal with it" is never a convincing argument for your side. In fact, it's quite the opposite: you're providing support for the other side that's saying it's unfair.
How would marriage work for single people, anyway? "You and yourself are now family"? "You will now change your last name to your last name"? "You can share your money with yourself"? "You can visit yourself in the hospital"?
Saying marriage is unfair because it doesn't help single people is like saying school is unfair because it doesn't teach people who decide not to go.[/QUOTE]

Education is also inherently unfair to those without education, yes. My point is that the goal is not to always be fair, but to create institutions that better society, even if it is at the risk of unfairness. We give incentives to married people because it is advantageous for society to have a safe and secure place for children to grow up. The unfairness to singles is worth the advantage. The same goes for education.

You seemed to be saying that we should allow gays to get married because it would make society more fair. I countered with the fact that the most fair way to do it would be to get rid of marriages all together. IF fairness is the only goal, then gay marriage isn't the most logical solution.

[QUOTE]Society has become more accepting of homosexuality in recent years. That's what changed.
Just like how when society became more accepting of racial equality, marriage changed to allow interracial marriage.[/QUOTE]

We are much less accepting of homosexuality than the ancient Greeks or Romans, where it was commonplace and no strong religious barriers existed, and yet they didn't have gay marriage. So it doesn't seem that making gay marriage equivalent to traditional marriage follows from acceptance of homosexuality. The discussion in the Greek philosophers was about the validity of homosexual love, but based on everything I've read they never even brought up the idea of same-sex marriage.

[QUOTE]Society isn't going to fall apart and die off because of gay marriage. Previously straight people aren't going to suddenly get married to people of their own sex for no reason and stop having children.
Western birthrates have fallen, but that's because the necessity for children has fallen due to technological and societal advancement. It's no longer necessary to have a male heir, you don't need your children to support you when you're older, infant fatality rates are lower, et cetera. The birthrates haven't fallen much, anyway. The amount of people will start to decline, but not drastically, only by a minimal amount.[/QUOTE]

I agree, gay marriage, on it's own, won't lead to the downfall of society, but that doesn't mean that it can't play a role. I see it as one more step in the downward staircase. The entire argument for gay marriage is that they love each other and therefore they should be able to get married. Once we've acknowledged this as a legitimate argument, then we've decided that marriage really has no role at all since, as I've said already, the government has no incentive to regulate or recognize love. We can easily give the inheritance benefits/hospital visitation/etc. without marriage.

Also, there are specific groups within western society that continue to have above replacement birth rates (Mormons, for example). Acutally, Atheists in general have a noticeably lower birth rate than the religious of any kind. It doesn't seem to be all the things you mentioned as much as a shift in thinking about marriage and the importance of children.

[QUOTE]sgman and bigfatworm, you guys seem to have some problem with the word "subjective". Subjective doesn't mean meaningless and random. It just means that it will change from person to person, because it's not grounded as some physical reality, but rather as a form of reasoning or taste. You can still argue about subjective things, it's just based on logic and empathy rather than numbers and observable truths.[/QUOTE]

Emotion is non-logical. You can't make a coherent argument based on emotions like empathy. Also, logic depends on facts to mean anything at all. You can easily make a logically sound argument that is incorrect. Without any objective facts you cannot make a compelling logical, and correct, argument. All you can do is appeal to emotion.

[QUOTE]By the way, how can you prove that your morality is [I]the[/I] objective morality? Even if you say "due to my religion / beliefs", that's still subjective. You may call it objective, but unless if you have some physical and inherent proof, it's subjective.[/QUOTE]

Let's just make it easy and say that I can't prove that my morals are objectively correct. With that said, the very fact that I acknowledge the existence of objective morals forces me to listen to other's arguments because they may have a better understand of those objective morals than I do. On the other hand, if I believed that all morals were subjective, then I would have no reason to even listen to other people. My ideas would be just as valid as anyone else's ideas.

[elix]

[QUOTE=sgman91;46171654]It points to the fundamental idea of marriage not including same-sex relationships. There were many cultures that had recognized the incorrect nature of disallowing interracial marriages and the same goes for inter-class marriages, but for some reason, essentially none of them came to that conclusion when it came to same-sex marriages.

Now, if the goal is to change what marriage is in order to allow same-sex couples to be included, then that's a completely different line of argumentation. I would ask whether it might be a bit rash to change one of the most fundamental, if not the single most fundamental, societal union that has been included, in one form or another, across basically every cultural boundary in order to make a very small portion of the population emotionally content.[/QUOTE]

Let's roll the clock back to 1950, and let's replace "same-sex" with "interracial" in your post.

Would you be willing to make an identical post arguing against allowing the races to intermarry? It's the [I]exact[/I] same argument translated into a different form of discrimination.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46175002]Let's roll the clock back to 1950, and let's replace "same-sex" with "interracial" in your post.

Would you be willing to make an identical post arguing against allowing the races to intermarry? It's the [I]exact[/I] same argument translated into a different form of discrimination.[/QUOTE]

Considering that none of my arguments apply to interracial marriage, no, replacing "same-sex" with "interracial" would create a non-argument.

Even the very statement that you quoted would be nonsensical and untrue if you replaced the words. Interracial marriage has existed since ancient times.

[01271]

Instead of just bringing up the past and cultural heritage why not try to make a new argument. It's the only way the defense doesn't turn into "but it's not like the past" or "but they cannot have children".
I was hoping the thread would go somewhere interesting.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=01271;46175857]Instead of just bringing up the past and cultural heritage why not try to make a new argument. It's the only way the defense doesn't turn into "but it's not like the past" or "but they cannot have children".
I was hoping the thread would go somewhere interesting.[/QUOTE]

Please read what I've written a little more closely. My argument is neither of those things.

[Lachz0r]

gay couples can still have children, heterosexual couples will still exist & have children even if gay marriage is allowed. thinking that gay marriage will cause the death of western culture due to underpopulation is the stupidest thing i've ever heard

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46176982]gay couples can still have children, heterosexual couples will still exist & have children even if gay marriage is allowed. thinking that gay marriage will cause the death of western culture due to underpopulation is the stupidest thing i've ever heard[/QUOTE]

No you're stupid! (It's sarcasm if you can't tell)

I can see that you're done trying.

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46176982]gay couples can still have children, heterosexual couples will still exist & have children even if gay marriage is allowed. thinking that gay marriage will cause the death of western culture due to underpopulation is the stupidest thing i've ever heard[/QUOTE]

Is this in reference to sgman's actual arguments (as he has not used this argument), or are you just criticizing some other argument that's unrelated to the current discussion in the thread?

[Lachz0r]

[QUOTE=sgman91;46177999]No you're stupid! (It's sarcasm if you can't tell)

I can see that you're done trying.[/QUOTE]

yeah because you're just saying all sorts of random vague conjecture. I THINK WE BETTER NOT CHANGE MARRIAGE... CRAZY SHIT MIGHT HAPPEN! i mean i'm not gonna say what kind of stuff, just that something MIGHT happen! and then that shit about not having children means western culture will be gone within 4 generations i mean come on

[editline]8th October 2014[/editline]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46178247]Is this in reference to sgman's actual arguments (as he has not used this argument), or are you just criticizing some other argument that's unrelated to the current discussion in the thread?[/QUOTE]

take a look on the previous page he did say that

[editline]8th October 2014[/editline]

i find it ridiculous that you say such bullshit & non arguments like before 'oh well you're ACTUALLY arguing against marriage completely!' then say i'm done trying?

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46178399]take a look on the previous page he did say that[/QUOTE]

Hmm, I can't seem to find it, can you quote exactly where he stated that gay marriage would lead to the death of Western culture due to under-population?

[Lachz0r]

[QUOTE=sgman91;46173910]Also, about this: the moment that a society stops having children is the moment that that society starts to die off. Values and ideas need to be perpetuated or other cultures will simply take over. Sure, there are lots of people on the planet, but guess where the vast majority of those people are coming from? They're in cultures who, ironically, don't agree with things like gay marriage. At this rate the entirety of western culture will die off in 3 to 4 generations. They almost unanimously don't have the required birth rate to replace their population.

Having children and successfully passing on a societies ideals and values is of preeminent important to any society that wants to continue.[/QUOTE]

[editline]8th October 2014[/editline]

so i guess he really just brought up some nonsensical unrelated crap for no reason? personally i think the implication is there but no, he didn't exactly state that because none of you kinds of people exactly state anything, you always hide behind bullshit attempts at sounding smart and logical to hide the bigotry you really feel

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46178686]so i guess he really just brought up some nonsensical unrelated crap for no reason? personally i think the implication is there but no, he didn't exactly state that because none of you kinds of people exactly state anything, you always hide behind bullshit attempts at sounding smart and logical to hide the bigotry you really feel[/QUOTE]

Sounds to me like he's talking about the modern view on sex by extrapolating off of your reference to under population.

Perhaps you just jumped to conclusions because you're getting too emotional about this discussion?

[Lachz0r]

see what i mean?

[Last or First]

[QUOTE=sgman91;46174885]Until very recently marriage was also an "objective thing." No one even considered marriage being between two people of the same sex because that simply wasn't what marriage was. The idea of marriage being between men and women has almost literally never changed throughout all of human history and cultures. Even polygamous marriages recognized that the man was married to many women, but that the women were not married to each other.[/quote]
Yet it's defined by people, you can't find it as a property of nature. Can you measure the marriage of a rock? Can you marry two numbers? Can you weigh marriage? Can you find the value of 5.7 to the power of marriage? No, it's an arbitrary thing that people decide on. It's odd that you say it's "objective" when people have decided to change it throughout history.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46174885]It still isn't just about love. If it were, then government would have no need to regulate it. People are free to love each other without being married.[/quote]
It isn't just love, you're right. It's about committing to that love and living together.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46174885]Admittedly, it is going in that direction though. There are quite a few hardcore libertarians that argue for the dissolution of marriage all-together.[/quote]
I wouldn't take "a few hardcore people" as it "going in that direction".

[QUOTE=sgman91;46174885]Education is also inherently unfair to those without education, yes.
...
The unfairness to singles is worth the advantage. The same goes for education.[/quote]
I think you missed the point. Maybe I should have picked a better example.
Marriage is for people who choose to live together as a couple. Comparing marriage for same sex couples to marriage for individuals is like comparing driver's licenses for teenagers to driver's licenses for walking, you're comparing apples to carrots. The vast majority of marriage benefits only work if there are multiple people. The others are to take into account that multiple people will be using the same things and that one person may be relying on the other for income, [I]so as to make it more fair for the couple[/I].

[QUOTE=sgman91;46174885]My point is that the goal is not to always be fair, but to create institutions that better society, even if it is at the risk of unfairness. We give incentives to married people because it is advantageous for society to have a safe and secure place for children to grow up. The unfairness to singles is worth the advantage.

You seemed to be saying that we should allow gays to get married because it would make society more fair. I countered with the fact that the most fair way to do it would be to get rid of marriages all together. IF fairness is the only goal, then gay marriage isn't the most logical solution.[/quote]
What about adoption? What about couples who decide to not have children? What about infertile couples?

[QUOTE=sgman91;46174885]We are much less accepting of homosexuality than the ancient Greeks or Romans, where it was commonplace and no strong religious barriers existed, and yet they didn't have gay marriage. So it doesn't seem that making gay marriage equivalent to traditional marriage follows from acceptance of homosexuality. The discussion in the Greek philosophers was about the validity of homosexual love, but based on everything I've read they never even brought up the idea of same-sex marriage.[/quote]
But then society stopped being quite so accepting of it. And now we're becoming more accepting again. That's what triggered it. Marriage becoming more about love than being a business deal helped, too.
What else could have caused the argument to show up?

[QUOTE=sgman91;46174885]I agree, gay marriage, on it's own, won't lead to the downfall of society, but that doesn't mean that it can't play a role. I see it as one more step in the downward staircase. The entire argument for gay marriage is that they love each other and therefore they should be able to get married. Once we've acknowledged this as a legitimate argument, then we've decided that marriage really has no role at all since, as I've said already, the government has no incentive to regulate or recognize love. We can easily give the inheritance benefits/hospital visitation/etc. without marriage.[/quote]
What's the point of giving all the benefits of marriage but not calling it marriage?
And the government's job is to care for its citizens. When love greatly affects how its citizens act (living together, caring for children, sharing assets, etc.), why wouldn't they recognize it?

[QUOTE=sgman91;46174885]Also, there are specific groups within western society that continue to have above replacement birth rates (Mormons, for example). Acutally, Atheists in general have a noticeably lower birth rate than the religious of any kind.[/quote]
It varies across certain groups, yes, but overall, they decline in more prosperous countries.
[QUOTE=sgman91;46174885]It doesn't seem to be all the things you mentioned as much as a shift in thinking about marriage and the importance of children.[/quote]
A shift in thinking about marriage and the importance of children... caused by those things I mentioned.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46174885]Emotion is non-logical. You can't make a coherent argument based on emotions like empathy. Also, logic depends on facts to mean anything at all. You can easily make a logically sound argument that is incorrect. Without any objective facts you cannot make a compelling logical, and correct, argument. All you can do is appeal to emotion.[/quote]
Ah, great, the "emotions and logic are mutually exclusive" argument. Emotions are based on events that happen. They aren't just random variables that mess things up. (Hell, when they [I]are[/I] random / [I]aren't[/I] based on actions, it's recognized as a disorder.) Empathy leads to arguments of fairness. A sense of justice leads to arguments of morality. A lack of justice makes people upset.
And I told you this in my post. I'll clarify a bit while I'm restating it: emotions and logic make use of facts to work.

Can you truly say that your argument is completely devoid of any emotion?

[QUOTE=sgman91;46174885]Let's just make it easy and say that I can't prove that my morals are objectively correct.[/quote]
Then they're not objective.
If they're grounded in some religious belief (which they are), then they're subjective, because people's religious beliefs are based on their own opinion of their religion and require faith. If it didn't require faith (belief without evidence), then it wouldn't be a religion.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46174885]With that said, the very fact that I acknowledge the existence of objective morals forces me to listen to other's arguments because they may have a better understand of those objective morals than I do. On the other hand, if I believed that all morals were subjective, then I would have no reason to even listen to other people. My ideas would be just as valid as anyone else's ideas.[/QUOTE]
The thing about democracies, republics, and similar forms of government is that even though people may disagree on details, people generally share a core moral: doing what's best for everyone. Their morality is subjective, but it overlaps. Since doing what's best for everyone is the core function of the government, it's alright to treat that moral as objective for the argument, since the point of the debate is to follow that moral.
Like how if you're debating how to make a sweet candy, it's irrelevant to say "some people don't like sweet candies", because that's not the focus. It's okay to treat sweetness as an objective truth because [I]that's your objective[/I], even though taste is very obviously subjective. That's why we treat "doing what's best for the people" as an objective moral, because [I]that's the objective[/I]. It's still subjective in that people can disagree as to how best to achieve that, and what exactly it entails.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=Last or First;46178961]Yet it's defined by people, you can't find it as a property of nature. Can you measure the marriage of a rock? Can you marry two numbers? Can you weigh marriage? Can you find the value of 5.7 to the power of marriage? No, it's an arbitrary thing that people decide on. It's odd that you say it's "objective" when people have decided to change it throughout history.[/QUOTE]

Not every natural thing must apply to all things equally. Human skin doesn't rust, but that doesn't mean that rust isn't a natural thing. By looking at human nature we can see that some for of male/female marriage is about as natural as any other human institution. I know of no successful society without some form of marriage.

[QUOTE]It isn't just love, you're right. It's about committing to that love and living together.[/QUOTE]

Again, why would the government care if you lived together? What is the difference, as it relate to the government, between lovers living together and friends living together? Why should they care and recognize one and give no care about the other?

[QUOTE]I wouldn't take "a few hardcore people" as it "going in that direction".[/QUOTE]

The idea of abolishing marriage would have been laughable even 40 years ago, but now there are lots mainstream people who hold the view. It has most definitely gotten a foothold in a segment of the population and it makes perfect sense. Like I've been saying: if marriage is only about love and sex, then why should the government care?

[QUOTE]I think you missed the point. Maybe I should have picked a better example.
Marriage is for people who choose to live together as a couple. Comparing marriage for same sex couples to marriage for individuals is like comparing driver's licenses for teenagers to driver's licenses for walking, you're comparing apples to carrots. The vast majority of marriage benefits only work if there are multiple people. The others are to take into account that multiple people will be using the same things and that one person may be relying on the other for income, [I]so as to make it more fair for the couple[/I].[/QUOTE]

Why does this not apply to roommates? They do everything that lovers would do bar the sex.

Also, the act of using the same things and combining your income is an inherent advantage, not a disadvantage. To give married people even more governmental advantages is to make them even more advantaged above someone who decideds to not get married.

[QUOTE]What about adoption? What about couples who decide to not have children? What about infertile couples?[/QUOTE]

Note that my argument has never been that gay people shouldn't be able to get married because they can't have children, but that the argument for gay marriage settles the fundemental change of what marriage is, that love is all that matters. If, on the other hand, the argument for gay marriage was that gay couples really just want to be able to raise children, and that's the reason they wanted to get married, then I might be a bit more open to it, but this simply isn't the case. I've literally never heard that argument come out of anyone's mouth.

[QUOTE]But then society stopped being quite so accepting of it. And now we're becoming more accepting again. That's what triggered it. Marriage becoming more about love than being a business deal helped, too.
What else could have caused the argument to show up?[/QUOTE]

I would argue that the dissolution of the male/female binary combined with the push in the 80s to the earl 00's that men and women were exactly the same (other than sex organs) are much more responsible than the acceptance of homosexuality. Like I said before, there were other societies in our history with even more acceptance of homosexuality, yet they never argued for gay marriage. On the other hand the dissolution of what it means to be a male and female is a new thing. I know of no other society before modern times to make such a claim.

It makes sense. Marriage is partly based on the idea that men and women provide different things to a union. That the union of the two is greater than the sum of it's parts, but this falls apart when you believe that men and women are identical.

[QUOTE]What's the point of giving all the benefits of marriage but not calling it marriage?
And the government's job is to care for its citizens. When love greatly affects how its citizens act (living together, caring for children, sharing assets, etc.), why wouldn't they recognize it?[/QUOTE]

Like I've said in the past, I see the raising of children and the passing on of societies values as the main function of marriage. This is an absolutely vital function that must be accomplished if a society wishes to continue. All other other stuff like sharing assets, living together, etc. can be done by roommates as easily as lovers. Children is the one benefit that I would ideally apply only to marriage. Note that this doesn't mean that only married couples should be allowed to raise children, but that we should uphold that marriage is the ideal.

[QUOTE]It varies across certain groups, yes, but overall, they decline in more prosperous countries.

A shift in thinking about marriage and the importance of children... caused by those things I mentioned.[/QUOTE]

You really don't think it's more than a coincidence that atheists have ridiculously low birth rates and that the more fundamental a religious sect the higher it's birth rate generally is?

Here's an article written by an atheist in the Guardian arguing that the childless life is better based on nothing more than personal gratification: [URL]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/sep/18/children-philosophy-childless[/URL] I can't help but assume that many other people agree with him.

[QUOTE]Ah, great, the "emotions and logic are mutually exclusive" argument. Emotions are based on events that happen. They aren't just random variables that mess things up. (Hell, when they [I]are[/I] random / [I]aren't[/I] based on actions, it's recognized as a disorder.) Empathy leads to arguments of fairness. A sense of justice leads to arguments of morality. A lack of justice makes people upset.
And I told you this in my post. I'll clarify a bit while I'm restating it: emotions and logic make use of facts to work.[/QUOTE]

There's a reason that an emotional appeal is a formal logical fallacy. Any appeal to emotion is fallacious when making an argument. ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion[/URL])

[QUOTE]Can you truly say that your argument is completely devoid of any emotion?[/QUOTE]

I would hope so. Please, point to a place where I've made an emotional appeal and I'll correct it.

[QUOTE]Then they're not objective.
If they're grounded in some religious belief (which they are), then they're subjective, because people's religious beliefs are based on their own opinion of their religion and require faith. If it didn't require faith (belief without evidence), then it wouldn't be a religion.[/QUOTE]

Faith, as used in my religion, is believe in future events based on what you know of past events. For example, faith that a person won't tell your secret to anybody based on the fact that they have a long history of never telling your secret to anybody. I hate blind faith as much as any atheist. My religious beliefs rise and fall based on facts that I agree with, not amorphous faith.

[QUOTE]The thing about democracies, republics, and similar forms of government is that even though people may disagree on details, people generally share a core moral: doing what's best for everyone. Their morality is subjective, but it overlaps. Since doing what's best for everyone is the core function of the government, it's alright to treat that moral as objective for the argument, since the point of the debate is to follow that moral.
Like how if you're debating how to make a sweet candy, it's irrelevant to say "some people don't like sweet candies", because that's not the focus. It's okay to treat sweetness as an objective truth because [I]that's your objective[/I], even though taste is very obviously subjective. That's why we treat "doing what's best for the people" as an objective moral, because [I]that's the objective[/I]. It's still subjective in that people can disagree as to how best to achieve that, and what exactly it entails.[/QUOTE]

It's funny that you are now appealing to some natural sense of what government is... which is the exact same thing that I'm doing for marriage. You are saying that government can be treated as objective because it has an agreed upon purpose. My entire point is that the purpose of marriage is violated when you make it all about love, just like the entire purpose of government is violated when you make it not about the betterment of society.

For example, let us say that we had a government who's goal was to inspire fear in it's populace in order to keep control over it. I would argue, in the same way that I am for marriage, that this is a false government. It does not stand up to what a government should be and therefore should be gotten rid of.

[Glitchvid]

[QUOTE=sgman91;46183102]Not every natural thing must apply to all things equally. Human skin doesn't rust, but that doesn't mean that rust isn't a natural thing. By looking at human nature we can see that some for of male/female marriage is about as natural as any other human institution. I know of no successful society without some form of marriage.
[/quote]
Using the appeal to nature fallacy again I see.
We went over this, just because it's natural or not natural makes no difference if gays are good or bad, or whether they should have equal rights.
Furthermore, I have yet to see you provide a defense for hetero only marriage other than "because it's not natural for gays to marry" which is an absurd statement; or the same argument my father uses "Because there is no such thing as gay marriage, it's between a man and women"; which is saying something can't exist because you can't describe it.
Just because you know of "no successful society without some form of marriage" has no bearing, among the myriad of false logic is that you would need to prove marriage [i]actually influences the success of a society significantly[/i], so [[i]Citation needed[/i]]
[QUOTE=sgman91;46183102]
Again, why would the government care if you lived together? What is the difference, as it relate to the government, between lovers living together and friends living together? Why should they care and recognize one and give no care about the other?
[/quote]
Tax reasons I'm sure, Other rights only given to family (Which Marriage provides to a couple...). I'm in the "why even" boat so I'm not personally defending marriage as an institution.
[QUOTE=sgman91;46183102]
The idea of abolishing marriage would have been laughable even 40 years ago, but now there are lots mainstream people who hold the view. It has most definitely gotten a foothold in a segment of the population and it makes perfect sense. Like I've been saying: if marriage is only about love and sex, then why should the government care?
[/quote]
Usually people for "abolishing" marriage are for abolishing it in the governmental sense...
[QUOTE=sgman91;46183102]
Note that my argument has never been that gay people shouldn't be able to get married because they can't have children, but that the argument for gay marriage settles the fundemental change of what marriage is, that love is all that matters. If, on the other hand, the argument for gay marriage was that gay couples really just want to be able to raise children, and that's the reason they wanted to get married, then I might be a bit more open to it, but this simply isn't the case. I've literally never heard that argument come out of anyone's mouth.
[/quote]
Gays want the same rights as straights, that's super simple IMO.
[QUOTE=sgman91;46183102]
It makes sense. Marriage is partly based on the idea that men and women provide different things to a union. That the union of the two is greater than the sum of it's parts, but this falls apart when you believe that men and women are identical.
[/quote]
Assuming a marriage is just "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship." then there's nothing explicitly making it a hetero only club.
[QUOTE=sgman91;46183102]
Like I've said in the past, I see the raising of children and the passing on of societies values as the main function of marriage. This is an absolutely vital function that must be accomplished if a society wishes to continue. All other other stuff like sharing assets, living together, etc. can be done by roommates as easily as lovers. Children is the one benefit that I would ideally apply only to marriage. Note that this doesn't mean that only married couples should be allowed to raise children, but that we should uphold that marriage is the ideal.
[/quote]
I'm fairly sure the people instilling cultural and societal values are the parents, [i]whoever they are[/i].
[QUOTE=sgman91;46183102]
You really don't think it's more than a coincidence that atheists have ridiculously low birth rates and that the more fundamental a religious sect the higher it's birth rate generally is?
[/quote]
Many a reason, I'd say Atheists are more logical when it comes to having children "Is this a good time to have a child".
Also most fundies are anti-abortion and anti birth control, so there's that.
[QUOTE=sgman91;46183102]
Here's an article written by an atheist in the Guardian arguing that the childless life is better based on nothing more than personal gratification: [URL]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/sep/18/children-philosophy-childless[/URL] I can't help but assume that many other people agree with him.
[/quote]
So what if atheists want to have a more successful life instead of having children, what does this have to do with allowing gays to marry?
[QUOTE=sgman91;46183102]
Faith, as used in my religion, is believe in future events based on what you know of past events. For example, faith that a person won't tell your secret to anybody based on the fact that they have a long history of never telling your secret to anybody. I hate blind faith as much as any atheist. My religious beliefs rise and fall based on facts that I agree with, not amorphous faith.
[/quote]
If you cared about knowing the truth you'd be an atheist by now.
[QUOTE=sgman91;46183102]
It's funny that you are now appealing to some natural sense of what government is... which is the exact same thing that I'm doing for marriage. You are saying that government can be treated as objective because it has an agreed upon purpose. My entire point is that the purpose of marriage is violated when you make it all about love, just like the entire purpose of government is violated when you make it not about the betterment of society.
[/QUOTE]
Governments are formed for a lot of reasons and serve a lot of purposes, recognizing marriage is one of them.
[QUOTE=sgman91;46183102]
For example, let us say that we had a government who's goal was to inspire fear in it's populace in order to keep control over it. I would argue, in the same way that I am for marriage, that this is a false government. It does not stand up to what a government should be and therefore should be gotten rid of.[/QUOTE]
Ok? That's fine, but since we live in a republic we have the ability to change laws without over throwing the government, what the gay rights activists are doing...

[HumanAbyss]

Being married gives you visitation rights in hospitals and power of attorney.

Yeah sgman, gay people don't need those things!

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46183700]Being married gives you visitation rights in hospitals and power of attorney.

Yeah sgman, gay people don't need those things![/QUOTE]

People don't get married for visitation rights or for power of attorney though... those legal powers aren't exclusive to wedded couples.

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46184571]People don't get married for visitation rights or for power of attorney though... those legal powers aren't exclusive to wedded couples.[/QUOTE]

They more or less are. Commonlaw marriage is a thing in Canada, not the states. Those visitation rights are nearly impossible for gay I married couples to have.

[editline]8th October 2014[/editline]

And no you don't get married FOR those but they're am important part of the deal legally speaking.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46183700]Being married gives you visitation rights in hospitals and power of attorney.

Yeah sgman, gay people don't need those things![/QUOTE]

Man, this post should be quoted word for word on how to make an argument through nothing but logical fallacies. I mean, you literally added nothing to the discussion.

1) Strawman, I've never said that I was against those specific rights. In fact, I would be for you being able to give those kinds of things to anybody you want, including friends. Why shouldn't a friend you pick be allowed to see you in the hospital or have power of attorney?

2) Ad hominem, you personally go after me as if it was my goal is to personally hurt gay people.

3) Appeal to emotion, you attempt to get agreement by making people feel bad instead of presenting an actual argument for those things.

[editline]8th October 2014[/editline]

Also, I'm going to wait for Last or First to respond, if he wants, to the big post since glitchvid seemed to respond to each part of my post completely out of the context of the discussion at hand.

[HumanAbyss]

Because you routinely and consistently brush off arguments

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46188256]Because you routinely and consistently brush off arguments[/QUOTE]

I've responded to every argument at face value. If you feel that I've brushed an argument aside without giving it due attention then point it out right away. Don't come back with vague accusations and fallacies many posts later. With that said, it seems like you believe that disagreeing with your point of view is equivalent to "brushing it aside."

[HumanAbyss]

When you limit a definition to the things you can accept as the definition and define changing it as wrong, it becomes impossible to create a compelling argument you don't just hand wave away as less valuable than your own objective opinion

[editline]8th October 2014[/editline]

I would say the same to you in regards to your edit.