Quote:
Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop
I, however, object to state recognized marriage same sex marriage because:
Quote:
|
In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
|
|
OK, you've quoted from this source here:
Secular case against gay marriage, but in that I haven't seen any external support for any of the points he made there whatsoever, and I'm frankly very mistrustful of that source.
This comes from the chilling conclusion to his article that reads as follows:
Quote:
|
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
|
Here, it really just seems to collapse onto the wearisome argument that marriage between homosexuals is the first step in a deterioration of morals and the cheapening of marriage.
This, as I need not point out is a fallacy known as a "slippery slope" argument. Why? Because it relies on assuming that there will be a trend in the requests for civil rights here, and that soon people will start bending the definition of marriage further here.
Like it or not, the whole article makes an extremely controversial assumption: that love ISN'T the main reason for marriage, or at least should be ruled out of the question when MONEY is thought of.
Personally, when I get married it is because I love the other person, not because I already want children. As Unknown Soldier has very kindly pointed out, why is "propagating the population" so damn important? There's definitely no sign of decline, world overcrowding is becoming a very serious problem with food and natural resources being stretched over an increasingly large number.
I have tons more to say here, but I shall have to finish with one final observation before the strange man with the whip comes along to drag me away to that strange homoerotic wrestling match where they make us young teenagers fight naked, and that is the following:
Quote:
|
If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?
|
For goodness sake, there's no suggestion made by anyone that this is going to happen. There are separate laws, such as laws against incest, which forbid them. It's showing that he's effectively putting gay marriage in the same boat as incest.