I sense a certain inconsistency.
Oh, please. :rolleyes:
It is my position that you cannot measure the “good” of everything you legislate “tangibly.” If you think you can, I’m sorry to hear that. I personally can think of a number of perfectly intangible benefits from various types of legislation. I’m glad they exist.
And if you do that you should dismiss them, since they are irrational, baseless, and clearly fictional. Not to mention dysfunctional; societies that base their morality on religion just don’t function well.
No; you should simply dismiss any and all conclusions that came from religion as worthless due to the source. It’s not like there aren’t non-religious reasons to do good, and you are far more likely to achieve good with non-religious reasoning.
No, it’s important to recognize their fundamental malignance and hostility, and to recognize that there’s no point in compromise. It’s important for their victims to realize that their goal is to hurt those they want to oppress, out of hatred and cruelty.
There’s just no pleasing you, is there?
Anyway, you don’t seem to have any real handle on how I think, because your assumptions are routinely wrong or hopelessly vague. You “submit” there are many things I want legislated and give me a rolleye when I ask for an example? Get over yourself.
So what about all those weddings happen with at least one infertile partner (either due to menopause, or some other cause)? Are those marriages? They can’t naturally reproduce with one another.
For that matter, neither can my mother and father. They’re done raising children, too. Are you saying they’re not really married?
Right now, marriage isn’t limited to procreation. It’s not always, or even usually for procreative purposes. There is no test as to whether a couple can procreate before they can marry.
So, if you defend marriage as it is now, you’re not defending marriage for the purposes of procreation. It’s that simple. The threat you suggest same sex-marriage poses is harm to an institution that simply doesn’t exist today.
If you want to argue that we should protect “traditional” marriage as you define it, you’re welcome to–but to have the argument make sense, first you have to ensure that “traditional” marriage as you define it exists.
And now, dear campers, it’s almost time for bed, and I have some Geometry homework to grade before I get there. So I’ll bow out for now, but I will share an observation, which, sadly, I find typical for this supposed “Straight Dope” board:
I have not in any post here opposed Same-Sex Marriage (as y’all like to term it). Indeed, I’ve offered hints that I’m not opposed to it, though I’ve not come out and said I’m not because, after all, I don’t want the people who oppose it to start dismissing my statements out of hand for that reason. Yet, although all I’ve said here is: don’t fall under the spell of believing that only you can be right, and the other side cannot be right in any way, I’ve been attacked all afternoon and evening by multiple proponents of SSM. It’s like you cannot accept that someone who disagrees with you could possibly have a rational viewpoint, no matter how divergent from your own. So even suggesting that that is POSSIBLE warrants attack, attack, attack.
To those who have engaged in a rational discussion, with give and take, my thanks. For those of you who prefer to sit upon your piled up mound of morality, casting judgments down from on high to skewer those who disagree with you, you need to come to terms with reality. The reality is, even if you are right, you are not inherently right. You are right by force of better reasoning, by force of better assumptions, by force of having a better goal. Use that to make your points instead, and you will get much farther. Otherwise, frankly, you are not much better off than the opponents you demonize, who point back at you and accuse you of the same lack of moral high ground.
You’re welcome.
No one cares what your feelings are. We care that you offer up magnificently stupid arguments that are based on nothing but religiously driven prejudice. You haven’t been attacked (at least by me) but you continually promote illogical rubbish and you pretend that it’s something you’ve thought long and hard about. Have fun grading the homework. But please try to think about your arguments in the future before assuming they’re right.
Can we assume, then, that you believe that marriage should be off-limits to post-menopausal women, men who have undergone vasectomy/orchiectomy (castration)/penectomy, men with irremediable impotence, women who have undergone hysterectomy/oophorectomy/vaginectomy/colpocleisis (surgical closure of the vagina), women with uterine disease which makes implantation of a fertilized egg and pregnancy impossible, persons who declare that they do not intend to beget or bear children, or persons who declare that they do not intend to engage in sexual intercourse once married? Some of these people have lost the natural ability to reproduce; others explicitly do not want to start or raise a family, let alone teach their (nonexistent) offspring to procreate.
If a married person becomes a member of one of these categories, should the couple be required to divorce?
For a number of folks, it is simply a matter of having lucked into the right position because its corresponds with their desires or because they see their friends hold the same views. Lots of folks believe the “right” things for terribly wrong reasons.
Again, this appears to be a moral subjectivist position, which is fine, but a radical moral subjectivist position that fails to comprehend the possibility of an objective morality, which is a deficient position to take in an argument. I believe that my position is objectively right, independent of the arguments made for it. The tree falling in the forest makes a sound if no one hears it, and the morally correct position is morally correct even if nobody argues effectively for it.
Maybe I misunderstand your use of the word “inherently,” and if I do, I apologize.
Sounds vaguely like a potential dodge to me:
“You’re right, but you’re not inherently right, so I still win the argument.”
Bryan, I don’t think that’s at all what he’s saying, and indeed I think that’s the kind of post he’s objecting to.
Lemme see, DS, if I can find some common ground:
There may or may not be an objective morality. If there is, that morality is not by itself going to win the day for either side of the debate, since our current intellectual tools can’t resolve doubt here in the way that our tools can resolve doubt in empirical questions. Being right is a starting place, not an ending place: you still need to present persuasive arguments to counter the views of those other folks who mistakenly believe something else is morally right.
Is that a good summary?
If so, I’ll ask a question: if someone’s argument is based on Biblical inerrancy, is there likely to be ANY argument with which they can be persuaded? I believe there is not, since Biblical inerrancy is not a foundation consistent with logic: trying to argue a fundamentalist out of their belief through logical arguments is as likely to be successful as dribbling a basketball down the soccer court and expecting to be awarded with points. Those who believe in Biblical inerrancy have a set of rules by which they make decisions that is wholly incompatible with the set of rules of those who use logic. You can no more reason them out of their position than you can preach me out of mine.
Do you agree? (Note, please, that I’m NOT discussing all Christians here, but only those who believe in Biblical inerrancy).
Nonetheless, I anticipate the day when someone in a discussion uses the version I’ve suggested. I’m sure I’ve already seen variations on it.
Oh, well, that’s different–if it’s possible that use of the phrase will one day have a negative effect, that’s reason enough for me to condemn it!
It will certainly dilute the concept of rightness.
Lacunae, do you stop and think a second before you write these arguments? Since when has the ability to have children been a condition of marriage? It is true that MOST male-female couples who get married want to and do have children. But there have always been couples who got married even though they could not have children. Have you been living in a cave, or something?
So then you would make it illegal for as man and woman who cannot reproduce to marry? You would deny the right of a woman past menpauase or of infertile people to marry?
Do you know of any modern state that would deny a couple the right to marry even though the woman has had her ovaries removed?
Would men and women who want to marry have to pass medical tests to prove they are fertile? And what if, as some couples do, the man and woman decide they do not want to have children? Would their marriage be annulled if they do not produce children?
Are you aware of how ridiculous your positions are, Lacunae?
So, do you think that straight couples who have kids via adoption/artificial insemination/surrogate parenting aren’t married? And if you think that such couples do qualify as married, could you explain why same-sex couples having children through such means (believe it or not, they do exist!) should not enjoy the same right?
If you’re going to deny same-sex marriage with the ‘but look at history’ argument, how can you not support polygamy? It goes back to Biblical times, after all.
My mean streak is screaming at me, to do the evil thing.
You know the one line snark thing
The TLDR thing.
But that would be messed up.
Must. Resist. 
I’m just gonna say, I disagree with your opinion and your premise, and it’s for reasons that you’ve already seen a zillion times.