[DanDaMan]

This is a different tack on another post.

Explain your reason(s) for allowing gays to marry.
Then explain why and how that would apply to polygamists.
Then explain why and how that would apply to marriage between family members.

I say marriage is a contract for children.
Perverting marriage for a group that can't have them naturally is unnatural.
The latter two can also be discriminated on, for whatever reason, because I can discriminate.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Explain your reason(s) for allowing gays to marry.
Then explain why and how that would apply to polygamists.
Then explain why and how that would apply to marriage between family members.

Because it doesn't make one bit of difference to my life either way.
Not sure why polygamists are in the same boat but see above
Not sure why family members are in the same boat but most (if not all) cultures have an "incest taboo" so I'm happy to keep with that.

As for "marriage is a contract for children" - I have hetrosexual friends that have been married for 30 years and do not have kids. Should they be forced to divorce?

[DanDaMan]

Because it doesn't make one bit of difference to my life either way.
Not sure why polygamists are in the same boat but see above
Not sure why family members are in the same boat but most (if not all) cultures have an "incest taboo" so I'm happy to keep with that.

As for "marriage is a contract for children" - I have hetrosexual friends that have been married for 30 years and do not have kids. Should they be forced to divorce?

Well, Im talking about the welfare of children which is the next generation of society.
So I think some care should be given to insuring the best methods for that.

That said... your desire to stay indifferent is not a legitimate reason.

And as for the married for 30 years.... the potential is there and the continuity of the best set of parents is there.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

your desire to stay indifferent is not a legitimate reason.

Really? It's served me pretty well for the last four decades. Why shouldn't it be a legit reason? Should only the people that jump up and down and make the most noise be the ones that are counted?

As an edit I wouldn't say that I am indifferent, I just don't see the point worrying about other peoples lives that don't affect mine. Letting gays marry will not make a difference to the amount of, or the parenting of, the children that hetros sire.

[DanDaMan]

Really? It's served me pretty well for the last four decades. Why shouldn't it be a legit reason? Should only the people that jump up and down and make the most noise be the ones that are counted?

As an edit I wouldn't say that I am indifferent, I just don't see the point worrying about other peoples lives that don't affect mine. Letting gays marry will not make a difference to the amount of, or the parenting of, the children that hetros sire.

I have a societal position that children need fathers, especially for boys.
Proven by the fact that 80% of all incarcerated males were brought up fatherless.
Therefore I'm not one to endorse a lifestyle that teaches a boy that a father was not needed when his two lesbian parents proved that fact to him.
It's a degenerative lesson that validates other bad behaviors like unwed mothers.

[Dave]

Marriage has a definition which a homosexual relationship obviously does not fit. There are issues for monogamous homosexual couples, however, with things like death benefits, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. which need to be solved. The trouble is that the gay lobby is so in love with homosexuality that rather than tackling this directly they're waging a campaign to make it seem like homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality, a preposterous and embarrassing suggestion. As for campaigns to have the state "marry" gays or worse, raise children, gays and especially gay worshippers frankly need to shut up. And I will go out and say that the fundies who think gays caused 9-11 and need to be stoned to death really need to shut up too.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

I have a societal position that children need fathers, especially for boys.

I agree. But last time I looked gays couldn't breed with each other and the OP had nothing to do with it. Should gays be allowed to marry? Why not? It's not my problem. Should gays be allowed to have/care for children? Different discussion.

[Dave]

If you've followed the history of progressivism, Rojik, you'll know that one inevitably leads to the other. Progressives are never satisfied with a victory, instead always wishing to raise the banner of the next cause. There's currently an organized polygamy faction touting polygamy as the next civil rights battle (this one probably won't get anywhere though since it involves abuse of women, a favored group of progressives).

Now if we do disentangle the issues, then the only problem is that our culture has never considered homosexual monogamy to be marriage. There is of course no material harm that comes from homosexual "marriage", but nor is there any material advantage to it. Thus I think following our long-established cultural norms is the way to go, while at the same time solving some of the practical issues homosexual monogamists face with various legal issues.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Agreed. But what does it matter unless it is stepping on your toes? At the moment there is no law prohibiting me from living in a sexual relationship with a man, nor does it stop me from having 5 girlfriends from living with me and sharing my bed. So why not let it be formalised? Do you care that the man next door has 3 wives? Or the fella that you say G'day to at the bus stop has a manwife? Gays getting married is a lot less of a concern to my life, and I think to humankind in general, than the so called free-speech ideal that let's the progressives advocate much more harmful forms of cultural destruction. Remember, you can't fight every battle without looking reactionary without a cause. You need to pick the important ones - say immigration for example - to be able to win the war.

[Dave]

I will be honest and say that this has become a minor battle for me out of pure spite. I used to be strongly in favor of gay rights, but the gay lobby has annoyed me so much with their tactics and rhetoric that I am now opposed to gay rights. I realize that it's not an issue of any particular importance and as such keep it on the backburner. Given how much attention I focus on issues like race, immigration, feminism, etc. it would be a needless distraction to also attack the organized homosexual lobby. Homosexuals are also potentially valuable allies to a reactionary like me on the national question, given that most Third Worlders don't think too highly of homosexuality.

As for valid reasons to fight the battle against homosexual marriage, there are basically three: conservatism, moral ascendancy, and heteronormativity.

The first is the raison d'etre of conservatism: to conserve our culture (or at least the parts not already rubbished). If something ain't broke, you don't fix it, and those seeking to "fix" it are to be viewed with suspicion.

The second reason is to end the moral ascendancy of progressivism. Progressives are lineal descendants of Whigs, and like the old Whigs they view history as a progressive march to some kind of progressive paradise--the City of God on Earth. Terminating this requires defeating their progressive initiatives, giving us the moral ascendancy instead. Caving in on issues to progressives increases their morale, their resolve, and their power. Unless the progressives are dead-right about an issue, then for this reason alone it is worth defeating them provided it doesn't divert resources from a much more important issue, as you rightly point out.

The final reason is "heteronormativity". To progressives heteronormativity is some sort of affront to civil rights, but to everyone else it's the default. Heterosexual relationships are and should be the norm, and preserving their superior legal distinction reflects and reinforces that.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Terminating this requires defeating their progressive initiatives, giving us the moral ascendancy instead. Caving in on issues to progressives increases their morale, their resolve, and their power. Unless the progressives are dead-right about an issue, then for this reason alone it is worth defeating them provided it doesn't divert resources from a much more important issue, as you rightly point out.

I agree that sometimes you need to draw a line in the sand, and I do have a niggling feeling that gay marriage rights might somehow cheapen my marriage, but then I think that the common law/de facto marriages have already done that. I will say that I am not really that firm on gay rights. Sometimes I think they should be given a fairer deal and other times I think "fuck it, just deal with the fact you are not like us, and never will be so get over it". But I will say from experience that a gay friend of mine lost his "life partner" and because of the laws he was denied a share of the superannuation and life insurance by his partners parents out of spite, so I can see a reason for a formal legal agreement.

[Dave]

I agree that sometimes you need to draw a line in the sand, and I do have a niggling feeling that gay marriage rights might somehow cheapen my marriage, but then I think that the common law/de facto marriages have already done that.

If part of the temple is in disrepair, the solution is not to tear down the temple. Rather than saying, "Well marriage is already ruined," we should fix marriage. Homosexual "marriage" makes the entire thing even more farcical.

I will say that I am not really that firm on gay rights. Sometimes I think they should be given a fairer deal and other times I think "fuck it, just deal with the fact you are not like us, and never will be so get over it".

Pretty much my perspective. The idea that all lifestyles, or indeed identities, merit equal consideration and respect borders on offensive. It's not like gays don't know they're different, either.

But I will say from experience that a gay friend of mine lost his "life partner" and because of the laws he was denied a share of the superannuation and life insurance by his partners parents out of spite, so I can see a reason for a formal legal agreement.

Absolutely, and that's where civil unions come into play. Marriage is a term with a lot of emotional baggage and therefore shouldn't be toyed around with just so some progressives can pat themselves on the back.

[Wolfman]

Perverting marriage for a group that can't have them naturally is unnatural

Argument from nature is a logical fallacy, which is especially absurb in this case because marriage is itself an unnatural propistion. Just give it up Dan

[Rojik of the Arctic]

If part of the temple is in disrepair, the solution is not to tear down the temple. Rather than saying, "Well marriage is already ruined," we should fix marriage. Homosexual "marriage" makes the entire thing even more farcical.

I think we are on the same page but it's still not something that I feel the need to invest emotional energy into.

[Paradigm]

I say marriage is a contract for children.
Perverting marriage for a group that can't have them naturally is unnatural.

Would you ban women who are past menopause from getting married?

[DanDaMan]

I say marriage is a contract for children.
Perverting marriage for a group that can't have them naturally is unnatural.

Would you ban women who are past menopause from getting married?

Not to a man, I wouldn't.
That propagates/fosters the continuity of marriage for children.
Two men marrying do not.

[DanDaMan]

If part of the temple is in disrepair, the solution is not to tear down the temple.

Can I steal that Dave?

[Paradigm]

Not to a man, I wouldn't.
That propagates/fosters the continuity of marriage for children.

Are you aware of what menopause is?

[DanDaMan]

Not to a man, I wouldn't.
That propagates/fosters the continuity of marriage for children.

Are you aware of what menopause is?

Menopause is the permanent cessation of reproductive fertility some time before the end of the natural lifespan.

Like I said... the marriage of a man to a woman gives continuity to the face of what a marriage should naturally be.

[Wolfman]

the marriage of a man to a woman gives continuity to the face of what a marriage should naturally be.

Argument from nature is a logical fallacy, which is especially absurb in this case because marriage is itself an unnatural propistion. Just give it up Dan