# Gay marriage - non-religious objections? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2004, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098 "2004-02-13T20:47:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Robbbbb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e9a140/32.png) [@Robbbbb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robbbbb)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/121 "2004-02-18T22:14:51Z")
> [@Saen](#): > > I never said you should be happy. I did say accept the proposals of Civil Unions. Vemont law does equate Civil Union as equal to marriage. So Vermont law lets me file a joint tax return with my same-sex partner? Vermont civil unions have portability so that they’re recognized in other states? > [@Saen](#): > > If you assert that marriage is some kind of Constitutional given right, like say freedom of speech, I would say many people would be harmed by it. Umm, how? Give me a specific example of someone who is harmed by me marrying my partner, as opposed to entering into a civil union. ---
**Author:** ![peri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/67e7ee/32.png) [@peri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peri)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/122 "2004-02-18T22:18:02Z")
> [@Saen](#): > > If you assert that marriage is some kind of Constitutional given right, like say freedom of speech, I would say many people would be harmed by it. This goes directly to the heart of the matter. Who, exactly, would be harmed and in what way? ---
**Author:** ![Faldage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Faldage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Faldage)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/123 "2004-02-18T22:25:09Z")
> [@Saen](#): > > I never said you should be happy. I did say accept the proposals of Civil Unions. Vemont law does equate Civil Union as equal to marriage. If Civil Union is the equivalent of marriage what’s wrong with calling it marriage? ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/124 "2004-02-18T23:15:09Z")
I’ll have you know, formatting this properly was quite the chore. > [@Hostile\_Monk65](#): > > How’s this for a non-religious refute for gay marriages. How could something be civilized and an absolute when if the whole human race practiced it the whole human race would be extinct. Why do you think it’s not naturally possible for a man and a man, or a woman and a woman to give birth to a child? Some believe the point of existence is to survive and reproduce, and gay marriage would defy the latter. Your turn. > [@](#): > > 1. Gay marriage will not be mandatory. We’re not asking that everyone on the planet suddenly marry someone of the same sex. Therefore, there’s no danger of extinction. Whoo. That was a close one. > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. It is completely obvious that gay marriage is not mandatory. This was not even an issue to begin with. This is the logical fallisy of Straw man. What hostilemonk was trying to show is that how can something be morally right when it doesn’t even allow reproduction. The argument made was this: IF everyone practiced it, the human race would become extinct. This argument has not been addressed. If it’s obvious that gay marriage won’t be mandatory, then why did the OP say “…if the whole human race practiced it the whole human race would be extinct.”? What does that have to do with anything? If the whole human race became celibate, we’d all end up extinct too. Why aren’t you out there arguing against celibacy? > [@](#): > > 1. If the whole human race was male, we’d be doomed. If the whole human race was female, we’d be doomed, but better accessorized. Does that mean that being male, or female, is wrong? Most women and men I know are both civilized, and absolute. > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. Your second “argument” is not even an argument. This was never even touched upon by hostilemonk. This is the logical fallisy of the Straw Man as well as Non-Sequitur. Common. If you’ll notice, I was extending the methods that the hostile monk used to condemn homosexuality to show the ridiculousness of this method. It’s a relatively common debating tactic; I was pointing out that he was using the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. Lack of reading comprehension. Common. > [@](#): > > 1. If the point of existence is to survive and reproduce, why have marriage at all? Wouldn’t it be better to have men go about fertilizing as many women as possible? Outlaw marriage! It promotes fidelity, which reduces the birth rate! Oh, and outlaw birth control. That’d give the population a boost. > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. Here you have missed the point. Hostile said: “some believe the point of exsistence is to survive and reproduce, and gay marriage would defy the latter.” THE LATTER\> means not survive part, just reproduce!! Therefore your argument #3 is irrelevent be/c your premise to refute it is flawed and his argument has not been addressed. Truly, your grammatical structure is unique. But what does it all mean? > [@](#): > > 1. Many gay people have children, either through adoption or through artificial insemination or by previous opposite-sex relationships. If marriage is all about reproduction, then why deny them and their children the privileges and rights that the legal state of marriage conveys? > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. Your forth argument is flawed because you are still running off of the premise that your third argument is based upon.“you say many gay people have children,” how is this an argument for gay marriage and reproduction? It goes directly to the quote in the hostile monk’s post you referred to above, to wit: “some believe the point of exsistence is to survive and reproduce, and gay marriage would defy the latter.” If gay people already have children, how can they be defying reproduction? > [@](#): > > 1. Many straight people don’t have children, for an enormous variety of reasons. If marriage is all about reproduction, why should they have rights and privileges above those of unmarried couples? > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. This “argument” is flawed as well! Straw Man. Now, lets look at why: hostilemonk NEVER said that marriage was ALL (exclusively) about reproduction! You’re straw man is that you said he did say this, and then “refuted” that argument. However, he did use the fallacious idea that homosexual people can’t reproduce as the basis of his stance against allowing gay people to marry. Which means that addressing this point is pretty much de rigeur. So what else is marriage about which would exclude the participation of gay people? > [@](#): > > Based upon the analysis of your “refutation” we can see that the arguments presented by hostilemonk have not been addressed, and therefor still stand as true until proven otherwise, if you can do so. In order to do so you must prove that is it infact “civilized and absolute” -refer to his post. Wow. Interesting technique. Post an incomprehensible mess that no-one can parse, and then claim that it’s true because it’s irrefutable. Puts the writings of William S. Burroughs into a whole new light. ---
**Author:** ![ferngully](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d07c76/32.png) [@ferngully](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ferngully)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/125 "2004-02-18T23:33:04Z")
> [@MrVisible](#): > > Wow. Interesting technique. Post an incomprehensible mess that no-one can parse, and then claim that it’s true because it’s irrefutable. Puts the writings of William S. Burroughs into a whole new light. Generally speaking, I disagree with your position on this argument. That being said, I am in hysterics at the closing of your post 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/126 "2004-02-18T23:39:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Hostile\_Monk65 was absolutely right when he pointed out that you cannot separate religion and morality. > > Quote: > By Hostile\_Monk65: Here is an absolute answer has to why no one can refute this argument adequately without religion. You can’t separate this decision from religion, as it is a moral judgment, and no one can separate morality and religion. Even the belief that you could do so is a religious belief. In summary, because you cannot separate any moral judgments from religion, this premise of this discussion is flawed and is therefore self defeating and meaningless. If you’re willing to accept this absolute, I will continue. If you choose not to establish this absolute, your arguments are self defeating and futile. > I also find it VERY INTERESTING that NO ONE has adaquately replied to his argument. Maybe this will help: > [@](#): > > Moral > Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär- > Function: adjective > Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom > 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL \ b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior \ c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment \ e : capable of right and wrong action \ > 2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL \ > 3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will \ \ > > - mor·al·ly /-&-lE/ adverb > synonyms MORAL, ETHICAL, VIRTUOUS, RIGHTEOUS, NOBLE mean conforming to a standard of what is right and good. MORAL implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong \. ETHICAL may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions of rightness, fairness, or equity \. VIRTUOUS implies the possession or manifestation of moral excellence in character \. RIGHTEOUS stresses guiltlessness or blamelessness and often suggests the sanctimonious \. NOBLE implies moral eminence and freedom from anything petty, mean, or dubious in conduct and character \. - Merriam Webster Online Dictionary With the exception of the synonym _Righteous_, no definition specifically requires a religious element for morals. In fact, the synonym _Virtuous_ specifically suggests that it’s possible to be moral without being religious. By the way, > [@](#): > > You can’t separate this decision from religion, as it is a moral judgment, and no one can separate morality and religion. Even the belief that you could do so is a religious belief. is circular logic. ---
**Author:** ![DesiderioDomini](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5e9695/32.png) [@DesiderioDomini](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesiderioDomini)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/127 "2004-02-18T23:51:22Z")
> [@Joe Random](#): > > That argument results in a very slippery slope. Specifically, it is of the form “If all people practiced X (which results in non-reproduction), the entire human race would become extinct. Thus, X is not civilized.” IF every male had a vasectomy, the human race would become extinct. IF every couple practiced perfectly safe sex, the human race would be come extinct. Yet these things are not uncivilized or “bad”. Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, the argument is flawed. Interesting thoughts, Joe. 1)Lets define slippery slope: “a certain event sets off a chain reaction which result in disastrous consequences.” Now, I think we all agree that if there were no reproduction, we would become extinct. A gay couple cannot by themselves reproduce, therefore, if everyone were gay, we would be extinct if no means of reproduction would be practiced. This one example is not a slippery slope because it does not result in numerous other events occuring, just one event: no reproduction, therefore extinction. There is only one link to the claim, not enough to make a chain. 2)You claimed the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum (which I proved above was not reductio ad absurdum by showing it was not slippery slope) while you committed the logical fallacy of Ipse Dixit. Therefore, your claim to reductio ad absurdum is not valid. Don’t claim logical fallacies at random, that is itself illogical. However, originally, this was not my argument, please remember that. My belief is that the fact that gay couples cannot reproduce is not the only reason gay marriage is wrong. It transends many other harmful, morally wrong results. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/128 "2004-02-18T23:53:13Z")
> [@Robbbbb](#): > > Marriage is more to most gays than just a name. I am a co-owner of a house with my same-sex partner of 8 years. If he dies, I may lose the house, because I don’t think I can afford the federal inheritance taxes I would be forced to pay on his half of the house. I find that it is hard to be that sympathic toward someone who already owns a half interest in a house worth at least $3 million (since federal estate taxes do not attach to an estate worth less than $1.5 million). ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/129 "2004-02-19T00:01:19Z")
> [@DesiderioDomini](#): > > A gay couple cannot by themselves reproduce, therefore, if everyone were gay, we would be extinct if no means of reproduction would be practiced. I know many gay couples who have reproduced. Therefore, your argument is invalid not only because it is irrational, but because at least one of its premises is false. > [@DesiderioDomini](#): > > You claimed the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum (which I proved above was not reductio ad absurdum by showing it was not slippery slope) while you committed the logical fallacy of Ipse Dixit. Therefore, your claim to reductio ad absurdum is not valid. Don’t claim logical fallacies at random, that is itself illogical. Did you just start introduction to logical reasoning or something? I’ve never seen the terminology for discussing logical argument so badly abused before. I, and everyone else here, wait with bated breath for you to offer an argument against gay marriage, instead of feckless prattle about other people’s arguments studded with random phrases out of Rhetoric 101 textbooks. ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/130 "2004-02-19T00:06:39Z")
> [@DesiderioDomini](#): > > MrVisible: > > You responded with: Which religion? > > Actually, in order to respond to you I would first as this simple question: do you believe in the exsistence of moral absolutes? This is a simple question which can be answered w/ a “yes” or “no”. Wow. The question of which religion should dictate morality in America hinges on my belief in moral absolutes? I never knew they cared so much about my opinion. Rather than answer your question, I think I’ll bask in the glow of my overwheming power! Muwahahahaha! ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/131 "2004-02-19T00:22:57Z")
> [@KellyM](#): > > I find that it is hard to be that sympathic toward someone who already owns a half interest in a house worth at least $3 million (since federal estate taxes do not attach to an estate worth less than $1.5 million). I’m no tax attorney, but there are both inheritance taxes and estate taxes. From [this site](http://willsandprobate.com/FAQ/inheritance-estate.htm): > [@](#): > > An inheritance tax is a tax imposed on the people (beneficiaries) who receive property from the deceased. The tax is calculated separately for each beneficiary, and each beneficiary is responsible for paying his or her own inheritance taxes. Those states that have inheritance taxes frequently tax spouses and children of the deceased at lower rates than other heirs. I believe **Robbbb** referred specifically to federal inheritance tax, which actually doesn’t seem to exist. However he might get hit harder by state inheritance tax than if he was married to his partner. ---
**Author:** ![Robbbbb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e9a140/32.png) [@Robbbbb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robbbbb)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/132 "2004-02-19T00:33:21Z")
> [@MrVisible](#): > > I believe **Robbbb** referred specifically to federal inheritance tax, which actually doesn’t seem to exist. However he might get hit harder by state inheritance tax than if he was married to his partner. Yeah, sorry, I was confused between Federal estate taxes (which had a much lower threshold only a couple years ago, coupled with my stupid inability to do math to make me think it would apply to me) and state inheritance taxes. Thankfully, I don’t have any experience dealing with it firsthand. Carry on… ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/133 "2004-02-19T00:49:32Z")
> [@DesiderioDomini](#): > > Lets define slippery slope: “a certain event sets off a chain reaction which result in disastrous consequences.” Now, I think we all agree that if there were no reproduction, we would become extinct. A gay couple cannot by themselves reproduce, therefore, if everyone were gay, we would be extinct if no means of reproduction would be practiced. This one example is not a slippery slope because it does not result in numerous other events occuring, just one event: no reproduction, therefore extinction. There is only one link to the claim, not enough to make a chain. Are you being obtuse on purpose? My point was that the line of reasoning given above, in order to be valid, must be applicable to _all_ situations which result in a lack of reproduction. Contraception results in a lack of reproduction. So does abstinence. Thus, given the above argument, both contraception and abstinence are morally wrong to the same extent as you believe homosexuality to be. This leaves you with two choices: [ol][li]Homosexuality is not acceptable due to the argument given above, and thus neither are contraception and abstinence.[/li][li]The above argument is flawed.[/ol][/li] So which is it? Is the above argument flawed, or is abstinence morally reprehensible? > [@](#): > > You claimed the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum (which I proved above was not reductio ad absurdum by showing it was not slippery slope) Incorrect. You have failed to demonstrate such. The logical conclusion of the argument posited results in every action that prevents reproduction as being “wrong”. This is an absurd conclusion, and thus the _reductio ad absurdum_ stands. > [@](#): > > However, originally, this was not my argument, please remember that. My belief is that the fact that gay couples cannot reproduce is not the only reason gay marriage is wrong. It transends many other harmful, morally wrong results. Would you care to elaborate? ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Monk65](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Hostile\_Monk65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Monk65)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/134 "2004-02-19T01:45:47Z")
Just wondering, what are of you pro-homosexuals going to do when and if an amendment gets passed by Bush establishing that the union of marriage must be between a man and a woman? Muwahahahaha ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/135 "2004-02-19T02:10:25Z")
> [@Hostile\_Monk65](#): > > Just wondering, what are of you pro-homosexuals going to do when and if an amendment gets passed by Bush establishing that the union of marriage must be between a man and a woman? First of all, this isn’t so much about being pro-homosexual as it is about being anti-discrimination. For instance, I’m very much _anti_-KKK, but they have a right to enjoy all the freedoms of this country, and I would never want them to be deprived of those rights. I am neither pro- nor anti-homosexual. To me, sexual orientation is no different from preferring brunettes. However, I find it appalling that people want to discriminate against homosexuals simply because they find homosexuality to be “unnatural”, “icky”, or “sinful”. Those simply are not good enough reasons to deny homosexuals the same oppurtunities that heterosexuals have in regards to “the persuit of happiness”. As to what I would do if an amendment is passed, I will gladly sign petitions asking for the revocation of such an amendment, as well as making sure that my votes reflected my opinions. I would be greatly disappointed to have the US decide to encode discrimination into its constitution. ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/136 "2004-02-19T02:15:58Z")
> [@Hostile\_Monk65](#): > > Just wondering, what are of you pro-homosexuals going to do when and if an amendment gets passed by Bush establishing that the union of marriage must be between a man and a woman? Muwahahahaha Actually, that’s a good question. So good, in fact, that I [started a whole new thread about it.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=240536) ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/137 "2004-02-19T03:17:39Z")
> [@MrVisible](#): > > I’m no tax attorney, but there are both inheritance taxes and estate taxes. > I believe **Robbbb** referred specifically to federal inheritance tax, which actually doesn’t seem to exist. However he might get hit harder by state inheritance tax than if he was married to his partner. He specifically said federal inheritance tax, which, as you note, does not exist. I interpreted that as a reference to the federal estate tax, which has a $1.5 million exemption (less any amount applied during the life of the decendent to avoid gift taxes), an exemption which is sufficient to exclude all but roughly 2% of all estates from taxation. I make no claim regarding state taxes; those obviously vary by state and may be substantial. However, if **Robbbb** wants to complain about state taxes, he should not refer to federal taxation regimes. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/138 "2004-02-19T03:28:13Z")
> [@Hostile\_Monk65](#): > > Just wondering, what are of you pro-homosexuals going to do when and if an amendment gets passed by Bush establishing that the union of marriage must be between a man and a woman? Three options: [ol] [li]Agitate for a constitutional convention to rewrite the Constitution to remove the offensive language;[/li][li]Start a civil uprising to overthrow the obviously corrupt government of the United States by force; or[/li][li]Move.[/li][/ol]I’m leaning toward #3, myself, not being the sort of person who cares for leading rebellions and not sanguine on the likelihood that a convention would lead to a Constitution with the odious language removed. ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/139 "2004-02-19T04:12:20Z")
> [@KellyM](#): > > Three options: > [ol] > [li]Agitate for a constitutional convention to rewrite the Constitution to remove the offensive language;[/li][li]Start a civil uprising to overthrow the obviously corrupt government of the United States by force; or[/li][li]Move.[/li][/ol]I’m leaning toward #3, myself, not being the sort of person who cares for leading rebellions and not sanguine on the likelihood that a convention would lead to a Constitution with the odious language removed. I’m with you, although I have my doubts any such amendment will actually be passed. ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/140 "2004-02-19T04:18:24Z")
By the way, I just heard Bill O’Reilly say that tomorrow he’s going to San Fran with several women and plans to marry them. If anybody opposes him he’ll say it’s got to be legal under the equal protection law, just as gay marriage is. I know he’s trying to make an anti-gay marriage statement, but I personally hope that, if he does this the city officials just say “great, how many are in your party?” I also wish it would turn out to be binding. 🆒 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098.md?page=8)