Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
Juice
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1966
|
Post: #16  Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 11:37 am Post subject: |
  |
|
|
Alun- I believe I have addressed every one of your concerns. I do believe I said;
| Quote: |
| Sure, if, indeed, heterosexual married couples have some privileges for being married it is because they need to be encouraged by the best possible authority to make, maintain and create a society by that best of possible means. |
Heterosexual relationships need to be encouraged and defended since it is those relationships which ultimately produce members of society. So, in that case heterosexual unions, called marriage, are distinct.
What's funny here is the promotion of homosexual families and how perfectly capable a same sex couple is to raise and rear children, and all I am saying is that heterosexual couples, from which children are produced, should be given as much encouragement as possible and if that includes some privileges other couples don't get then that is exactly why they call them privileges because if everyone had them they would be called something else, and have the effect of producing a different result.
Homosexual arrangements are not the same as heterosexual arrangements, there is no equality there, just like everything else. One is distinct from the other, therefore one will be viewed and treated distinctly from the other.
You want to talk about "fairness, and justice" as if you have a monopoly on those concepts. While whats fair to me is that the traditional idea of "family", meaning the marriage of a man and woman who will then produce children and raise them, be protected, defended and encouraged since that is what makes sense and has been established to work.
As I have stated on numerous occasions, it matters not how people want to live as long as living the way they want does not exert force or harm of any kind.
| Quote: |
| They're stuck being homosexual; |
I find this to be a remarkable observation! Not stuck being male or female, but stuck with a sexual preference for which others must consider legal courses, but cannot consider legal courses for themselves resulting from their own sexual preference.
The reason for your skepticism is your desire to disparage me and my view that homosexuality makes no sense therefore any legal considerations given are also based on the lack of sense they ultimately make.
PJ, in his Op, recognizes that it is possible that making certain laws will have no effect on attitudes, it may be that the reason for this is that ultimately certain legal considerations are not actually based on subjective equal or fair criteria, for reasons of inherent ambiguity.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alun
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 1015
|
| Post: #17 Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Juice wrote: |
Alun- I believe I have addressed every one of your concerns. I do believe I said;
| Quote: |
| Sure, if, indeed, heterosexual married couples have some privileges for being married it is because they need to be encouraged by the best possible authority to make, maintain and create a society by that best of possible means. |
|
Which is why I had not listed those privileges until you later asked me to. I did quote you asking for them.
| Juice wrote: |
| Heterosexual relationships need to be encouraged and defended since it is those relationships which ultimately produce members of society. So, in that case heterosexual unions, called marriage, are distinct. |
No. As I've been saying, there is not an exclusive or necessary connection between a heterosexual union and child-bearing, just as there is not a necessary connection between marriage and child-bearing. You can get married even if you don't want kids, can't have kids of your own, couldn't afford kids even if you wanted them, etc. etc. Likewise, homosexuals can have kids of their own or adopt too. I've already said all of this and received only silence and dismissal.
| Juice wrote: |
| that is exactly why they call them privileges because if everyone had them they would be called something else, and have the effect of producing a different result. |
Really? You think that heterosexual marriages would be weakened by the possibility of homosexual marriages? How? How is it harmful to give homosexuals the same choice?
| Juice wrote: |
| You want to talk about "fairness, and justice" as if you have a monopoly on those concepts. While whats fair to me is that the traditional idea of "family", meaning the marriage of a man and woman who will then produce children and raise them, be protected, defended and encouraged since that is what makes sense and has been established to work. |
No, what I want is for you to translate that traditional idea into terms of an objective concept of fairness. So far you have not; you have just repeated a set of assertions and ignored the objections I've raised to them. The fact that heterosexual families can work, and have traditionally worked, does not undermine the fact that homosexual families can work just as well.
| Juice wrote: |
| Quote: |
| They're stuck being homosexual; |
I find this to be a remarkable observation! Not stuck being male or female, but stuck with a sexual preference for which others must consider legal courses, but cannot consider legal courses for themselves resulting from their own sexual preference. |
Eh? What legal courses can a homosexual take that I cannot?
| Juice wrote: |
| The reason for your skepticism is your desire to disparage me and my view that homosexuality makes no sense therefore any legal considerations given are also based on the lack of sense they ultimately make. |
I only know about you what you've told me, and am in no position to judge anything besides your writing. I am not here to attack you. I just can make no sense of your view other than to assume it is drawn from your personal preference of heterosexual families to homosexual families. This is either drawn from a mistake in judgment I'm making or from your personal preference; the reason I'm talking to you is to figure out which.
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juice
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1966
|
| Post: #18 Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Once again Alun you sidestep the point.
Since a child is produced through copulation between a man and a woman, and since you agree that child rearing is best in a familiar atmosphere then it stands to reason that the best situation is that a child produced through the union of a man and woman those men and woman who produce children should be married and raise the children they produce.
As I have stated, and you have alluded too, since the only distinction between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples is with whom they copulate, and since homosexual couples cannot reproduce unless they seek ulterior methods of obtaining a child then if we encourage the traditional methods of child production and child rearing and those methods are accepted by all standards then homosexual couples will never have children because they are unable to produce children on their own, together.
If sex is not the motivating factor of gender and sex then Alun you and I can get married in order obtain legal benefits from that union without ever having sex with eachother!!!!!!!! Or what would you do make sure someone is actually gay before letting them get married so they can get benefits? Shouldn't straight people be allowed to get married too so they can benefit from the privileges of that union?
What is the purpose of sex?
What is the purpose of gender?
What is the purpose of marriage?
What is the purpose of love?
What is the purpose of producing and raising children?
The world you wish to create is one where there are no rules, and if there are then they should only comport to the idea that there are no rules.
This is the reason why homosexual marriages make no sense especially in light of the reasons you suggest to support them. The entire concept of legal sexual unions is based on how it effects society and maintaining that society through the production and rearing of children, and since the best way to produce a child is through the union and copulation between a man and woman, and since the best way to rear a child is in a stable familiar setting then why not just combine and then support and defend marriage as the union between a man and woman by extending to them the motivations to do so.
These are concrete concepts not based on if, maybe's and suppose this could be.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alun
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 1015
|
| Post: #19 Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Juice wrote: |
| Since a child is produced through copulation between a man and a woman, and since you agree that child rearing is best in a familiar atmosphere then it stands to reason that the best situation is that a child produced through the union of a man and woman those men and woman who produce children should be married and raise the children they produce. |
I don't know for sure what the emboldened phrase means to you, but I suspect I disagree.
I'm going to reformat the next quote:
| Juice wrote: |
[1] the only distinction between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples is with whom they copulate...
[2] homosexual couples cannot reproduce unless they seek ulterior methods of obtaining a child...
[3] if we encourage the traditional methods of child production and child rearing and those methods are accepted by all standards...
[4] then homosexual couples will never have children because they are unable to produce children on their own, together. |
Sure, 1 and 2 are true, but why should we accept 3? And if we don't accept 3, 4 doesn't follow.
| Juice wrote: |
| If sex is not the motivating factor of gender and sex then Alun you and I can get married in order obtain legal benefits from that union without ever having sex with eachother!!!!!!!! |
I thought you'd never ask.  I don't see what the issue is here. We don't make sure heterosexual couples actually have sex either.
| Juice wrote: |
What is the purpose of sex?
What is the purpose of gender?
What is the purpose of marriage?
What is the purpose of love?
What is the purpose of producing and raising children?
...
The entire concept of legal sexual unions is based on how it effects society and maintaining that society through the production and rearing of children |
I agree with this, but:
| Juice wrote: |
| the best way to produce a child is through the union and copulation between a man and woman, and ... the best way to rear a child is in a stable familiar setting |
I see no reason to think either of these claims is true. What is your standard for these things? Again, I can only conclude that you're assuming that the traditional method is better, to the point of excluding other methods, simply because it's traditional, familiar, and preferable for you.
| Juice wrote: |
| The world you wish to create is one where there are no rules, and if there are then they should only comport to the idea that there are no rules. |
Erm. I like rules. I do not see how supporting, 'homosexual couples are as deserving of marital privileges as heterosexual couples' entails supporting the lack of any rules.
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
