>>>Rubbish. By that logic the existence of married couples unwilling or unable to have children means that this “negation” of the essential “purposes” of marriage already exist in society. Conversely, many heterosexual couples have children without ever getting married. From an evolutionary perspective, the use of contraceptives is as “unnatural” as homosexual sex.
Edo, you’ve hit the nail on the head: contraception does negate one of the essential purposes of marriage… I completely agree! In fact, I think it’s fair to say that a large part of the acceptance of homosexuality in the culture at large flows from this misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of sex. Now, before your eyes roll back into your head — 
— I’d like you to at least consider my position before dismissing it. So appealing to contraception doesn’t do anything to rebut my argument, does it?
But it does! As you said;
“the crux of my position is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman in which they engage in reproductive-type sexual acts.”
Safe sex, like homosexual sex (and, for that matter, any type of non-intercourse sex) cannot be defined as a “reproductive-style sexual act”. What about in-vitro fertilisation, is that a “reproductive-style sexual act”? To me, your definition of marital sex is flimsy and arbitrary. My eunuch, paraplegic and impotent examples remain unaddressed.
Incidentally, are you against the use of contraceptives?
>>>What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Polygamous heterosexual marriages are just as, if not more, geared towards procreation (the “essential reason” for marriage, as you put it), than monogamous heterosexual marriages. We’re talking about gay marriage here, not polygamy. The issues are completely irrelevant to one another.
No, they aren’t. If you want the public to accept gay marriage, then you need to give a reason, a principle, which accounts for why gay marriage is a good which society should recognize, but polygamous marriage is not (I’m presuming here that you are opposed to legalizing polygamy; correct me if I’m wrong). If gay marriage is a civil right, isn’t polygamous marriage also a civil right?
If straight marriage is a civil right, isn’t polygamous marriage also a civil right? Same argument, different perspective. Hence my dismissal of this point as irrelevant. See, we seem to have fundamentally different views as to the “burden of proof” (where have I heard that before?) Whereas you are calling on me to explain why homosexual marriage SHOULD be legitimised, I’m calling on you to explain why it SHOULDN’T be, and why it ISN’T merely a logical extension of equality. Since it is your President who stirred up the hornet’s nest by proposing a constitutional amendment, may I suggest that the burden of proof is on you to explain why the definition should be heterosexually standardised? (although I’m comfortable either way). As far as I’m concerned, altering the consensus from “a man and a women” to “two consensual adults” leaves no such polygamous loopholes. Incidentally, I’d like to hear from any male who has successfully convinced any intelligent, individualistic females to engage in a polygamous relationship and escaped with his testicles intact.
>>>I think that the main problem people have with gay marriage is not the “erosion of society”, or the “sanctity of marriage”, or the “survival of the species”, or any of that alarmist horseshit, but rather the anachronistic persistence of an general unwillingness to recognise the natural phenomenon of homosexuality, be it based upon religion, culture, ignorance, or otherwise.
First, note that this isn’t my argument.
Perhaps not yours (in fact, I’m still not 100% sure what your argument is), but it seems to be the general consensus.
Second, just because someone’s tendency is involuntary doesn’t mean that it’s moral. We all have certain tendencies that we *rightly* avoid acting on, b/c we recognize that if we *did* act on them, we would actually end up *harming* our well-being, and others as well. If your argument is consistently applied, then it would be *impossible* to criticize anyone for anything, since pretty much everything we do is a result of an involuntary tendency.
Soo… homosexual “involuntary tendencies” should be avoided to avoid “harming our well being”, but heterosexual “involuntary tendencies” are OK? Oh, as long as you’re married? (are you against pre-marital sex as well?) How exactly does a person’s sexuality, provided it is channelled into consensual relationships, “harm” one’s, or anyone else’s, “well being” exactly? You yourself acknowledge below that they are perfectly capable of forming loving relationships, or is this a platonic euphemism?
>>>Now, for Edo’s questions…
Do you believe that a person’s sexuality has any bearing on their morality, intelligence, ability to form relationships, or otherwise live up to their full potential?
I’m not sure what you mean by this question, Edo. Can homosexuals be as smart or smarter than heterosexuals? Of course. Can they form loving relationships? Of course. Does that mean that a(n actively) homosexual relationship is a good? I don’t think so, and I see no contradiction in say that with what I just stated.
What I mean by this question is this: is a person’s sexuality, in your opinion, moral, immoral, or amoral? Or does it depend on what sexuality it is? If so, why? I’ll let you clarify your position before addressing the rest of your reply, because it can be misconstrued in a very disappointing light.
>>>In your opinion, does a homosexual relationship differ in any objective way from a heterosexual relationship, when the gender of the two parties is ignored? (ie, is a homosexual relationship somehow less “serious” than, or in any other way disparate from, a heterosexual one, all things considered?)
But that’s just it: I don’t think the gender of the relationships *can* be ignored. I think our gender is an intrinsic part of who we are, and that you can’t just set it aside. What do you think of this analogous question: In your opinion, does an adult incestous relationship differ in any objective way from a heterosexual relationship, when the biological identity of the two parties is ignored?
I agree that consensual, adult incest is difficult to broach from a purely rational, libertarian perspective, as abhorrent as it is (then again, where would the British Royal Family be without it?), but I would argue that incest destroys the asexual, platonic nature a healthy family should espouse, and is therefore detrimental to a child’s rights living under these conditions. Let me ask you this in turn. Is a heterosexual incestuous relationship any better or worse than a homosexual incestuous relationship?
>>>Do you believe that it is ethical for there to exist inequalities in society towards an individual based upon any inherent characteristics established irrespective of that individual’s free will?
Yes. I’ll give you an example: parents have certain rights which their minor children do not have.
No, no. I’m not talking about the differentiation of rights between adults and minors, which is rationally and cognitively based (should a 6-year old be expected to have the mental faculties to legally enter into a contract? Of course not. That’s just common sense). I’m talking about the differentiation of rights between those who are born with character traits and those who aquire them voluntarily. For example, is it justifiable to imprison an individual, thereby robbing them of their right of liberty, for committing a crime? Yes, if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual partook of this action wholly of their own free will. Is it justifiable to imprison a person who is identified as having some hypothetical “Murder Gene”, which grants the person a greater proclivity for committing such a crime? No. This person has broken no laws, so imprisoning them for a potentiality is extremely unethical (the movie Minority Report handled this theme quite admirably). In a similar vein, is it justifiable for homosexuals to have unequal rights compared to heterosexuals? No, because (apart from homosexuality not being a crime), an individual’s sexuality is not a function of free will (no matter how hard the fundies may scream that “homosexuality is a choice”). It’s NOT a choice, any more your sexuality was your choice; any more than it was the choice of animals belonging to the over 300 species in which homosexual behavior has been recorded; any more than your skin colour was your choice; any more than your gender was your choice. Therefore, why should there be any differentiation in civil rights? There shouldn’t be between races; there shouldn’t be between sexes; what makes sexual preference any different?
But more to the point, marital laws as they exist today are not unjust: marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. That’s simply what it is. If marriage were merely a sexual relationship between two consenting adults, then it would be unjust to deny gays such a union. But that’s not what marriage is, and too often people beg that very question in asserting that marriage practices today are unjust.
They’re not unjust according to YOU. Even if marriage were defined in stone as a union between a man and a woman, I still wouldn’t care. I’m arguing for what marriage SHOULD be defined as, not what is IS defined as, just as 50 years ago I’d be against the notion which prohibited interracial marriage, just as 100 years ago I’d be against the notion which prohibited inter-faith marriages, just as 500 years ago I’d be againt the notion which prohibited marriage to non-virgin females, and so forth, no matter how much traditionalism and doom-saying were levelled against me. It’s purely a matter of civil rights. If you disagree, explain why.
Do you agree that homosexual couples should be granted civil unions with the exact same rights under law as heterosexual marriages?
Leave a reply to I want to shower you with sugar lumps, and ride you over fences