The Best Purely Secular Argument Against Gay Marriage (that I've found) PART VII

Me reading--

THE CASE AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
by
Margaret A. Somerville

found at--

http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf

Category:

Music

Tags:

• marriage
• same
• sex
• gender
• proposition
• mormons
• hate
• h8te
• california
• lgbt
• equal
• rights
• civil
• lds
• demonstration
• temple
• religion
• bible
• family
• procreation
• technology

[Darkbison7]

Her report, which as we see, has failed in Canada, lacked support for the notion that 'the marriages of potentially procreating couples' would be in any real danger from the legalization of gay marriage. She also failed to outline any 'dangers' to the population, as no threat was explained as to how straight people would 'stop' procreating as a result of gay marriage. If you are going to present a secular argument, please find one that did not already 'fail' to justify a BAN on gay marriage.

[Darkbison7]

Somehow, I am rather disappointed. As I stated in my note to you, to build a direct legal argument specifically against 'gay marriage' would do both of us some good. The best you can do is use radical straw man analogies about saving lives via traffic laws, a ghost threat of underpopulation, and eating meat in restaurants? You are but one of countless people with the same un-scientific, and legally weak arguments that I have known. I guess I got my hopes up and thought u had airtight logic.

[HiveRadical]

##* The following is analogous to the demands of your logic as applied to another realm "Do you value human life and believe it right to promote such via traffic laws? Then to have a logically defensible position you must advocate that all vehicles have computers that will restrain them from crashing."

You see pretentious comes from the same root as 'pretend.' You pretend that your logic has any kind of merit, you are the pretender, another word for pretender is hypocrite.

[HiveRadical]

You were trying to be respectful? I don't buy it.

My statement stands and is relevant. You try and pretend that for an ideology to be defensible that all stops must be pulled in executing it. Since when is it respectful to make such inane demands? ##*

[Darkbison7]

You are quite pretentious. I was trying to be respectful, but some people can't see the forest for the trees. You have thus been unable to discredit my analysis, so you create a straw man analogy to totally unrelated topics, 'vertebrates' and such, that are easier for you to deal with.

[HiveRadical]

This is true idiocy and your claims are simply untenable in the extreme. It's akin to saying that those who advocate for the humane treatment of animals must go to the extreme of drawing the line between some kingdom of life, that they must avoid killing all vertibrates or even extend it to invertibrates and limit any and all consumption or use life to the consumption of plants. Your inability to even recognize the reality of the whole of the context/reality demonstrates insipidly flat logic.

[HiveRadical]

Again all this has a terribly myopic and ultimately untenable view of what is meant to propagate human civilization.

For you to assume that cultural and civil interactions and transmissions don't have significant impacts on the total efficacy of humanities transmission is the peak of stupidity, there's a reason that certain cultures presently significant will not be in a few decades and their demographic realities are very much tied to their perception of, and dealings with, marriage.

[Darkbison7]

All in all, even if the state DID have any biological incentives to grant couples 'legal' marriage, you have not explained how allowing legal 'same sex' marriages would pose a clear and present danger to society. Gay male married couples can adopt. Married lesbians can have artificial insemination. Gay couples already 'exist', and they are not stopping anyone else from producing children, or living their lives.

[Darkbison7]

Furthermore, sterile individuals would be banned from marrying non-sterile people, to ensure that the non-sterile people would pair up with other non-sterile people. Also, things such as vasectomy operations would be banned for not only married couples, but ALL citizens. Your case would mean that the states will ban all forms of birth control, in order to ensure the continuation of the species. If anything, study how 'overpopulation' is more of a dangerous issue now than 'underpopulation.'

[Darkbison7]

The United States is in no danger of underpopulation as a result of the legalization of gay marriage. The ability to produce children is not a current requirement of legal marriage. Humans will reproduce with or without legal marriage period. To assume that any legal institution is necessary to convince people to participate in coitus and procreate is a tremendous error. If the state was merely using 'legal' marriage to produce more children, they would be barrwed from using contraception.