Gay Marriage

[Tisme]

I still can't figure out why marriage should be afforded two people who are stalled at the one of the various polymorphous perverse stages? Surely marriage should be reserved for those who have fulfilled their intended developmental maturation as nature intended i.e. e.g. procreation?

 

[Value Collector]

I still can't figure out why marriage should be afforded two people who are stalled at the one of the various polymorphous perverse stages? Surely marriage should be reserved for those who have fulfilled their intended developmental maturation as nature intended i.e. e.g. procreation?

Why should it be reserved for those who can procreate?

Not all married couples want to procreate, not all married couples can procreate, it's up to each married couple to define what their married lives will look like, if the purpose of your marriage was raising kids, good for you, but not all marriages are.

Regardless what you priest of grandma told you, you don't need to be married to procreate, and you don't need to procreate to be married.

 

[Tisme]

Why should it be reserved for those who can procreate?

.

Because that is what is was invented for.

Insofar as procreation requiring marriage, you're talking to the wrong fella, but I did consider my children's welfare in deciding to give them a traditional birth right rather than be an outcast sideshow Bob and curiousity to their peers .... we couldn't have that VC ... they might commit suicide and I wouldn't knowingly sentence someone to that now would I?; God forbid that a couple would deliberately conceive children to be ridiculed and made to feel inferior

 

[Value Collector]

Because that is what is was invented for.

Insofar as procreation requiring marriage, you're talking to the wrong fella, but I did consider my children's welfare in deciding to give them a traditional birth right rather than be an outcast sideshow Bob and curiousity to their peers .... we couldn't have that VC ... they might commit suicide and I wouldn't knowingly sentence someone to that now would I?; God forbid that a couple would deliberately conceive children to be ridiculed and made to feel inferior

Nope, lots of marriages don't result in children, procreation is not a prerequisite of marriage.

You might have some feeling that your marriage was all about procreation, but not every shares your feelings on that, the meaning of marriage is like the meaning of life, the is no one holy grail meaning, every one has a different meaning, and the meaning is given by the people taking part in it, it's not up to you to tell other people what their marriage should be about.

 

[Tisme]

Nope, lots of marriages don't result in children, procreation is not a prerequisite of marriage.

You might have some feeling that your marriage was all about procreation, but not every shares your feelings on that, the meaning of marriage is like the meaning of life, the is no one holy grail meaning, every one has a different meaning, and the meaning is given by the people taking part in it, it's not up to you to tell other people what their marriage should be about.

Well lets visit what we actually can establish, rather than recall yarns from vested interest sites and journals.

We know:

that the royals through the ages have used marriage to cement alliances and that b4stard children don't get a geurnsey;

that b4stard children to common folk have traditionally been subjected to scorn and ridicule;

that legally, as illegitimates, they weren't entitled to the fathers putative estates that their legitimate half/full brothers & sisters were;

they couldn't use the father's surname;

the mother and child couldn't demand support from the father;

that bastard children are left out of lines of succession;

that until Whitlam came along, state welfare was not readily available;

children born outside wedlock were often taken from the delivery room to an institution or adoptive "married" couple;

unmarried pregnant women were often, sent to "visit" their aunty across country and returned sans child;

engagements and chaste brides are part of the customs of marriage, albeit less significant since the days of baby boomer protests and the pill;

these customs and taboos are not new and reflect strongly the expectation of society. They are not subordinate to revisionism, they are real history. It is obvious that marriage and children are an intertwined custom that also has the weight of the legal and statutory system behind it.

Denigrating the truths to open the door for abstraction does not lay well with those who still value tradition and dare I say sexual discipline.

 

[Value Collector]

Well lets visit what we actually can establish, rather than recall yarns from vested interest sites and journals.

We know:

that the royals through the ages have used marriage to cement alliances and that b4stard children don't get a geurnsey;

that b4stard children to common folk have traditionally been subjected to scorn and ridicule;

that legally, as illegitimates, they weren't entitled to the fathers putative estates that their legitimate half/full brothers & sisters were;

they couldn't use the father's surname;

the mother and child couldn't demand support from the father;

that bastard children are left out of lines of succession;

that until Whitlam came along, state welfare was not readily available;

children born outside wedlock were often taken from the delivery room to an institution or adoptive "married" couple;

unmarried pregnant women were often, sent to "visit" their aunty across country and returned sans child;

engagements and chaste brides are part of the customs of marriage, albeit less significant since the days of baby boomer protests and the pill;

these customs and taboos are not new and reflect strongly the expectation of society. They are not subordinate to revisionism, they are real history. It is obvious that marriage and children are an intertwined custom that also has the weight of the legal and statutory system behind it.

Denigrating the truths to open the door for abstraction does not lay well with those who still value tradition and dare I say sexual discipline.

Putting aside that I don't think any of those traditions are good things, and society has moved away from they anyway.

None of what you have said shows that marriages must be able to produce children to be valid, you have simply listed some out dated examples of traditions that involve relationships that do produce children.

You are making the composition/division fallacy. you implied that one part of something has to be applied to all.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

 

[Tisme]

Putting aside that I don't think any of those traditions are good things, and society has moved away from they anyway.

None of what you have said shows that marriages must be able to produce children to be valid, you have simply listed some out dated examples of traditions that involve relationships that do produce children.

You are making the composition/division fallacy. you implied that one part of something has to be applied to all.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

No I'm sticking to the theme. You have denied the tradition of marriage is based on, basically family and continuously used love as the basis of marriage instead, rather than a driver. I'm simply stating the facts and the weight of evidence to suggest legitimatised children are a MAJOR core reason for marriage. It's not the margins that matter here, it's the institution of marriage, whether it be planned or shotgun.

If I didn't intend to have children I would have continued on without marriage. Marriage and love are not mutually inclusive.

 

[Value Collector]

legitimatised children are a MAJOR core reason for marriage.
.

no doubt some people marry because they want children, but there is also no doubt other people marry for other reasons unrelated to children.

the composition/division fallacy you are making here starts when you look at the reason of part and say that's the whole reason.

If I didn't intend to have children I would have continued on without marriage. Marriage and love are not mutually inclusive

Good for you, But a lot of other people feel differently, again this is the composition/division logical fallacy, you are suggest that what applies to must apply to everyone.

 

[Tisme]

no doubt some people marry because they want children, but there is also no doubt other people marry for other reasons unrelated to children.

the composition/division fallacy you are making here starts when you look at the reason of part and say that's the whole reason.



Good for you, But a lot of other people feel differently, again this is the composition/division logical fallacy, you are suggest that what applies to must apply to everyone.

You are missing the point or being deliberately recalcitrant to the idea that marriage has a long tradition of being what it is. There is no logical fallacy in what I have written ... you're imagining it or just skimming people's posts.

 

[Value Collector]

You are missing the point or being deliberately recalcitrant to the idea that marriage has a long tradition of being what it is..

No you are missing the point, because you seem to think marriage is about one thing, when its not, and you are ignoring the fact the many people do not have children but still value their marriages and want the marriage recognised by their government, the fact that you feel your marriage had no value outside procreation is fine, but that's not what it means for most other people.

There is no logical fallacy in what I have written ...

Yes there is,

you are suggesting that one part of something (procreation) is the whole/only reason for that thing (Marriage), which is false, and is a logical fallacy.

Its like saying work is for money, therefore people that don't need the money won't see any value in work, its a fallacy because you are ignoring all the other factors people might value in their work, and focusing on one part, being the money as the sole benefit and sole reason, which it is not.

 

[SirRumpole]

Its like saying work is for money, therefore people that don't need the money won't see any value in work, its a fallacy because you are ignoring all the other factors people might value in their work, and focusing on one part, being the money as the sole benefit and sole reason, which it is not.

SSM is just like women trying to force their way into men's clubs.

It's an "up you mate" response, you have it so we want it, just to stick a finger in "the other lot's" eye.

 

[Value Collector]

SSM is just like women trying to force their way into men's clubs.

.

no its like the government recognising clubs founded by men, but refusing to recognise clubs founded by women.

Gays aren't trying to force themselves into your club/your marriage, they just want their right to have their club/marriage recognised.

and people against gay marriage are like the men saying, "But I don't want women to have their own club, clubs are just for men, your taking my rights away"

or

"Women can have their own club, I just don't want them to call it a club, they can call it a social group, clubs are for men"

It's an "up you mate" response, you have it so we want it, just to stick a finger in "the other lot's" eye

ssm in no way takes anything away from straight marriage, and in no way harms straight couples.

 

[Tisme]

No you are missing the point, because you seem to think marriage is about one thing, when its not, and you are ignoring the fact the many people do not have children but still value their marriages and want the marriage recognised by their government, the fact that you feel your marriage had no value outside procreation is fine, but that's not what it means for most other people.



Yes there is,

you are suggesting that one part of something (procreation) is the whole/only reason for that thing (Marriage), which is false, and is a logical fallacy.

Its like saying work is for money, therefore people that don't need the money won't see any value in work, its a fallacy because you are ignoring all the other factors people might value in their work, and focusing on one part, being the money as the sole benefit and sole reason, which it is not.

OK, not to be too trite, of course I'm talking about marriage as a majority, vast majority custom that goes back many generations, not the X an Y gens.

I'm not arguing that sterile people get married, that the sun rises in the morning, etc. I'm stating facts insofar as what rights, expectations and privileges both govt and society have bestowed on marriage over a long long time.

Pandering to the margins to argue a point about the vast majority is not so much a logical fallacy, but statistically it is so small as to be discarded from the probability that when couples marry, their intention is to create a nest and a family.

There was a time when people had to have medicals, virginity and fertility tests before they could be married in various institutions.

SSM is just another breach of fortress marriage, with marriage itself fast becoming a comedy rather than solemn coupling, the same sex sheeple will no doubt get what they want, but it will be husks not grains that they reap.

 

[Value Collector]

OK, not to be too trite, of course I'm talking about marriage as a majority, vast majority custom that goes back many generations, not the X an Y gens.

.

Be careful how far you go back, because even what you think of as marriage wasn't always traditional.

I'm not arguing that sterile people get married, etc. I'm stating facts insofar as what rights, expectations and privileges both govt and society have bestowed on marriage over a long long time.

Pandering to the margins to argue a point about the vast majority is not so much a logical fallacy, but statistically it is so small as to be discarded from the probability that when couples marry, their intention is to create a nest and a family.

Not just sterile people, even people with kids value a lot more than just the procreation part of their marriage, that's where your fallacy comes in.

But yes, we allow sterile people, people that don't plan on having kids, elderly people who are past having kids etc all get married, so that has nothing to do with it.

SSM is just another breach of fortress marriage,

How so?

Explain how a lesbian couple getting married would have detracted from your marriage?

 

[SirRumpole]

and people against gay marriage are like the men saying, "But I don't want women to have their own club, clubs are just for men, your taking my rights away"

It's not like that at all. Anti SSM people are saying there should be different clubs for different folks.

Women can have their own clubs but so should men be able to have theirs.

In this case the women's clubs are civil unions (about which I have not heard a good argument saying that they don't give the same rights as marriage), and the "men's" club is marriage which recognises the unique ability of TWO people to unite and have children and provides legal protection for those children.

You are comparing apples with oranges (again).

 

[Tisme]

It's not like that at all. Anti SSM people are saying there should be different clubs for different folks.

Women can have their own clubs but so should men be able to have theirs.

In this case the women's clubs are civil unions (about which I have not heard a good argument saying that they don't give the same rights as marriage), and the "men's" club is marriage which recognises the unique ability of TWO people to unite and have children and provides legal protection for those children.

You are comparing apples with oranges (again).

I have a mental picture of wind and pi55ing into it

 

[SirRumpole]

I have a mental picture of wind and pi55ing into it

Fraid so.

 

[Tisme]

Not just sterile people, even people with kids value a lot more than just the procreation part of their marriage, that's where your fallacy comes in.

B?

Please reveal the part of the marriage act that stipulates love and other bruises? The one you want to change?

Then start talking about logical fallacies......

 

[Value Collector]

Women can have their own clubs but so should men be able to have theirs.

In this case the women's clubs are civil unions
).

No, the most accurate analogy is the one I gave, when you are married, you have formed a private club between you and your spouse, gay people aren't trying to force their way into your private club and become a third wheel in your marriage, they just want to have the right to form their own private clubs with their spouse, and have it recognised as a club on equal footing to your club.

You are saying gays/women shouldn't have the right to start there own clubs, unless they call it a social group.

Your analogy of a woman trying to force her way through the door of a men's club isn't a good analogy at all, because gays aren't trying to get into your marriage, they want to have their own.

 

[Value Collector]

Please reveal the part of the marriage act that stipulates love and other bruises? The one you want to change?

Then start talking about logical fallacies......

Sorry mate, its you that's making the claim that Marriage is solely about procreation, so why don't you point out the part in the marriage act stating marriage is for the sole reason of procreation.

Its not up to the Marriage act to stipulate what people value about their marriages anymore than its up to the property ownership acts to stipulate what people value about owning their own home, there would be a whole host benefits to both property ownership and marriage that different people value, as I said just because you saw marriage as nothing more than a vehicle for procreation doesn't mean that the way everyone looks at it.