Governments cease to exist if they don't have citizens, so they have a vested interest in supporting and subsidizing heterosexual marriages that result in children being born, which allows the country to continue to exist; Gay people can't have children so Gay marriage makes no sense as a function of the government.Religion is pretty clear on it's rules and you can't change them, that's what makes it a religion. You could vaguely argue that liberalism is a religion of it's own with it's own belief structure (multiculturalism), god (equality), devil (Hitler), and churches (universities); so there you go, make your own religion if you want that justification, no need to force Christianity to change.Society recognizes and (ideally) respects heterosexual marriage because again, having kids is what keeps the country and society alive, it's non-optional. There's nothing uniquely respectable about a sexual relationship on it's own, if you have or adopt kids then there's something to respect; So society in general has no reason to legitimize Gay marriage.Before anyone says it, yes this does mean that I don't see any point in a guy and girl getting married if they don't want/ can't have kids, that's the entire point of marriage.
On the topic of Gay marriage, there are three cases to consider, Government; Religion, Society:Governments cease to exist if they don't have citizens, so they have a vested interest in supporting and subsidizing heterosexual marriages that result in children being born, which allows the country to continue to exist; Gay people can't have children so Gay marriage makes no sense as a function of the government.Religion is pretty clear on it's rules and you can't change them, that's what makes it a religion. You could vaguely argue that liberalism is a religion of it's own with it's own belief structure (multiculturalism), god (equality), devil (Hitler), and churches (universities); so there you go, make your own religion if you want that justification, no need to force Christianity to change.Society recognizes and (ideally) respects heterosexual marriage because again, having kids is what keeps the country and society alive, it's non-optional. There's nothing uniquely respectable about a sexual relationship on it's own, if you have or adopt kids then there's something to respect; So society in general has no reason to legitimize Gay marriage.Before anyone says it, yes this does mean that I don't see any point in a guy and girl getting married if they don't want/ can't have kids, that's the entire point of marriage.
Please tell me you are trolling so I don't have to nitpick this post to hell and back.
I didn't know you have to get married to have kids.
Quote from: Cadenza on February 13, 2016, 09:21:40 PMgod (equality)You're onto something, but you're not quite there yet.Spoiler
god (equality)
Quote from: Septy on February 13, 2016, 10:04:26 PMI didn't know you have to get married to have kids.You don't, the purpose of marriage is to make having kids easier but it is optional, bastard.
Monogamous marriages, regardless of sex, are preferable for producing working, tax paying adults.
Orphans are a thing.
Therefor it's in the state's and society's interest to promote committed monogamous relationships, regardless of sex.
What do you mean by preferable?
If the majority of Gay marriages were about adopting orphans that would be a fair point, but that begs the question of if Gay adoption is a good alternative to what we have now.
That I can agree with, monogamous relationships are better for society, but you'll have to go a step further to justify Gay marriage over a Gay relationship.
Good riddance.
Quote from: Decimator Omega on February 14, 2016, 03:29:19 PMGood riddance.Even if you dislike every opinion he wrote, he's still been a huge influence on government for the past thirty years.
Quote from: Cadenza on February 14, 2016, 01:14:04 AMWhat do you mean by preferable? It is the preferable situation for kids.
QuoteIf the majority of Gay marriages were about adopting orphans that would be a fair point, but that begs the question of if Gay adoption is a good alternative to what we have now.Alternative to what?Gays being allowed to adopt doesn't take away from others ability to adopt, right now there are plenty of kids without homes that aren't being taken up by heterosexual couples.
QuoteThat I can agree with, monogamous relationships are better for society, but you'll have to go a step further to justify Gay marriage over a Gay relationship.Marriage as it stands exists to strengthen the bond of a monogamous relationship to legal status, creating greater mutual obligation and more difficult exit. Barring a group from that, especially if you want couples to be staying together longer, is counter-productive.
And the purpose for strengthening that bond is to help with raising children. If you don't want children then marriage isn't for you, use a different method for strengthening your relationship instead of trying to force a system to cater to a group of people that it was never meant to cater to.
Considering almost 1/3 of married couples don't have a child, the original purpose you are bringing up now is practically non-existent. Especially when the system is showing support for that 1/3 and is steadily rising. I'm not saying the nuclear family is bad, but that time is coming to a close. Keep in mind that this has been on the rise since the end of the 50's "Traditional America". Quote from: Cadenza on February 14, 2016, 05:53:59 PMAnd the purpose for strengthening that bond is to help with raising children. If you don't want children then marriage isn't for you, use a different method for strengthening your relationship instead of trying to force a system to cater to a group of people that it was never meant to cater to.
Two thirds of married couples have children, that's double the amount that don't, and yet you're trying to say they don't even exist? that doesn't make any sense at all.
As for the trend, what's your point? that liberalism continues to be a failure of an ideology?
I didn't say they don't exist, I said the original purpose behind the system supporting marriage doesn't. Quote from: Cadenza on February 14, 2016, 09:02:36 PMTwo thirds of married couples have children, that's double the amount that don't, and yet you're trying to say they don't even exist? that doesn't make any sense at all.
What exactly is being failed? As for the trend, what's your point? that liberalism continues to be a failure of an ideology?
Obama had him killed.
Quote from: PSU on February 15, 2016, 12:19:58 AMObama had him killed.This is Serious.
Sucks, but the guy was a fucking scumbag.
Quote from: Nick McIntyre on February 13, 2016, 04:59:50 PMSucks, but the guy was a fucking scumbag.Yeah man, it sucks that he defended your right to face your accuser in criminal proceedings, burn the flag and not be punished under unclear laws.What a fucking scumbag.
Scalia as himself [. . .] was a scumbag
"Oh should we allow child abusers and pedophiles to be protected now?"
I'm not saying the nuclear family is bad, but that time is coming to a close.