Utah, Procreation & Same-Sex Marriage
Gay Couple with child (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
As a general rule, I would contend that if something is morally wrong, then it should be possible to present non-fallacious and reasonable arguments to show that it is wrong. I would also probably add that there should be actual facts involved. I would obviously not claim that the arguments must be decisive—one generally does not see that in ethics. While people continue to argue against same sex marriage, the arguments continue to be the usual mix of fallacies and poor reasoning. There is also the usual employment of “facts” that are often simply not true.
In the United States, the latest battle over same-sex marriage is taking place in Utah. The state is being sued on the grounds that the amendment that forbids same-sex marriage is a violation of their rights. The lawsuit certainly has merit—a state does not get to violate constitutional rights even if many people vote in favor of doing so. As such, a rather important legal question is whether or not same-sex couples’ rights are violated by this law.
Utah is following the usual model of arguing against same-sex marriage, although they have at least not broken out the argument that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to or is equivalent to a person marrying a goat.
As might be expected, they made used of the usual pair of fallacies: appeal to tradition and appeal to common practice by claiming that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman is correct because it is “age-old and still predominant.”
Utah also tried the stock procreation gambit, with an added bit about the state’s interest: “Same-sex couples, who cannot procreate, do not promote the state’s interests in responsible procreation (regardless of whether they harm it).” Utah has also made use of the boilerplate argument about “responsible procreation” and “optimal mode of child rearing.”
Same-sex marriage is thus criticized on two grounds in regards to “responsible procreation.” The first is that same-sex couples cannot procreate naturally. The second is that same-sex couples will fail to provide an “optimal mode of child rearing.” To deny same-sex couples the right to marry because of these criticisms would require accepting two general principles: 1) marriage is to be denied to those who do cannot or do not procreate and 2) people who are not capable of the “optimal mode of child rearing” are to be denied marriage.
The first principle entails that straight couples who do not want children or cannot have them must also be denied marriage. After all, if an inability (or unwillingness) warrants denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the same would also apply to different-sex couples.
This principle would also seem to imply that couples who use artificial means to reproduce (such as in vitro fertilization or a surrogate) must be denied marriage. After all, same-sex couples can use these methods to procreate. Alternatively, if different-sex couples can use these methods and be allowed to marry, then same-sex couples who procreate would thus also be entitled to marriage.
The principle would also seem to entail that all married couples would be required to have at least one child, presumably within a specific time frame to ensure that the couple is not just faking their desire (or ability) to have children in order to get married. This would certainly seem to be a violation of the rights of the parents and a rather serious intrusion of the state.
The second principle would entail that straight couples who are not optimal parents must be denied marriage. This would seem to require that the state monitor all marriages to determine that the parents are providing an optimal mode of child rearing and that it be empowered to revoke marriage licenses (much like the state can revoke a driver’s license for driving violations) for non-optimal parents. Different-sex parents can obviously provide non-optimal modes. After all, child abuse and neglect are committed by different-sex couples.
While I do agree that irresponsible people should not have children and that the state has an obligation to protect children from harm, it seems absurd to deny such people the right to marry. After all, not allowing them to marry (or dissolving the marriage when they proved irresponsible) would hardly make such people more responsible or benefit the children. Now to the matter of the state’s interest.
For the sake of the argument, I will grant that the state has an interest in having people reproduce. After all, the state is just a collection of people, so if there are no new people, the state will cease to exist. Of course, this also would seem to give the state an interest in immigration—that would also replace lost people.
This interest in procreation does not, however, entail that the state thus has an interest in preventing same sex-marriage. Allowing same-sex marriage does not reduce the number of different-sex marriages—that is, there is not a limited number of allowed marriages that same-sex couples could “use up.” Also, even if there were a limited number of allowed marriages, same-sex couples would only be a small percentage of the marriages and, obviously enough, marriage is not a necessary condition for procreation nor responsible procreation. That is, people can impregnate or be impregnated without being married. People can also be good parents without being married.
In light of these arguments, the procreation argument against same-sex marriage is still clearly absurd.
A Philosopher's Blog 
Queers Suck–Not Unlike Public Edjumacation–Part Of CYCLIC, Spenglerian “Decline”
Queers are psychotics, in case u didn’t know–obsessed w. sense gratification–still there’s problem of degree, and by itself not grounds for exterminating the puke, or other such proscriptions. But people have right of discrimination, esp. against queers and other psychos.
And the state, controlled by people who’ve issued fm opposite-sex marriage thus provides a privilege to marriage, effectively encouraging marriage (of opposite sex) which is obviously the right of the people–and which is discriminatory, perhaps, but it doesn’t hurt anyone else, regardless the idiot complaints of queer psychos (a redundancy).
It’s one thing u leave out–how queers are hurt by not being allowed marriage.
But Mike, where and how u make ur worst mistake, esp. as one who pretends to philosophy, is failing to see this queer agitation is typical part of assault against the rational society–discriminating against these disgusting psychos, called queers.
And it’s all part of the on-going “Decline of the West” by Oswald Spengler, as I’ve noted, the original society beginning w. Aristotelian objectivity now degenerating in evermore gross subjectivism, always, always, always paved by the excuse/pretext of “moral virtue” and “good,” this putrid “good” always and traditionally the worst enemy of TRUTH.
Further, another of ur failings is sucking-along w. the politically-correct party-line, failing to criticize–perfect example of failing of public edjumacation which always turns into most crass, putrid propaganda–which is all u’re pushing here for this article of urs.
Michael,
Would you like to be interviewed with over 1.2 million listeners?
Let me know thanks!
Roy Dan Baron Live. Senior Executive Producer & Bureau Chief of Global Freedom Network http://www.globalfreedomnetwork.blogspot.com (541) 991-8388 globalfreedomnetwork2014@gmail.com
>
Mike will say this is because the animal has no choice. I say it does have a choice. That argument is paramount to saying that we can’t feed animals because they have no choice, and since the West worships choice, we all just know that’s the most important aspect of the argument.
The left’s message: Sex only matters when choice is violated.
Look, sex with animals is nothing more than a plea for attention. If someone truly wants to have sex with an animal, it doesn’t take much intelligence to do it without anyone else ever knowing about it. Humans have kept their relationships secret and the factors involved are thousands of times more complicated. The dog will never tell. So the only way anyone could object is because the person having sex with the animal brags about it. It’s nothing more than a cry for either attention or help. And those attracting attention to the subject, like those on this show and AJ as well, are doing their own preening. Both those supporting and those protesting. It’s all a BS distraction.
I find it interesting that Mike uses hyper-rationalist arguments when it comes to same-sex marriage, when in fact the height of rationalism would tell us that marriage should not matter at all. Isn’t that the argument the Left has been feeding us for decades?
Apparently it only matters when the favored children of the left aren’t allowed to get married.
Why does marriage matter, Mike? Is it only the legal status and tax write-off?
This is the real, in fact only question relevant. Don’t expect Mike to argue this point to any finite end. He will bail out either with the clown nose, the hand wave, or just eventually ignore it and move on. Though I’m sure you know this better than I.
Marriage (of opposite sexes) is given a privileged status, obviously for purpose of encouraging marriage, all Christian and Western society having been built upon it. So now queers say they’re discriminated against–even though the scum are not being harmed–and Mike says they have an argument which he cannot substantiate, merely insisting society has an obligation to give queers whatever they give anyone else.
For queers should not have access to children, as no psychotics should. Queers have become our masters in the name of “morality” of the irrationalist culture of death.
Make no mistake, Mike is taking part of psychotics–irrationalists–for a psychoticized, irrational society–and Mikey thinks this is soooooooooooooooo “moral,” ho ho ho ho ho. In truth, it is certainly all of a consistent logic. Such then is the reductio-ad-absurdum of “public edjumacation,” paid-for by the US Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) COUNTERFEIT scam run by our Jew overlords, the culture of death, for the sake of death and anti-reason.
All depends on what you mean by the term. I’ve argued before that there should be at least three distinct types of marriage:
1. Theological unions: set by churches, these would have no economic or legal status. All doctrines are controlled by the churches, so they are free to act on professed beliefs (such as no gay theological unions).
2. Legal Unions: these are handled by the state and have legal status. These include the economic and legal aspects of marriage, such as inheritance, insurance and so on.
3. Love Unions: these are handled by individuals. They have no legal status. Individuals can profess their love, undying or otherwise.
Legal unions should be open to all adults capable of consent, perhaps with the legal and financial aspects broken down into checklist form and allowing people to select different folks for different legal rights (such as inheritance or hospital visitation).
Marriage changes regularly based on economic and legal changes in society, so this would just be continuing business as usual.
I was embittered by my divorce, which is something to keep in mind. 🙂
The institution of marriage, for practical purposes, covering and entailing the obvious and necessary reasoning, is to place marriage btwn opposite sexes in privileged position, legally, esp. for tax-purposes–there is NO other use or purpose for the institution which was then, obviously, given religious and other distinctions, though the religious aspect probably accompanied the legal development.
“Marriage” only has real meaning as pertaining to opposite sexes. “Marriage” for queers is just an idiotic travesty and sacrilege–no doubt deliberate by the queers and Jews who think they’re soooooooo clever for the “culture” now turned on its head.
Note that in the hyper-rationalist left’s world, there is no such thing as “sacred”. It is a meaningless fiction.
You will be assimilated.
“The unstoppable rise of gay marriage really speaks to the replacement of older, conservative elites with a new elite, one that is, remarkably, less tolerant of dissent and more demanding of psychological affirmation of its every idea, whim and campaign than its predecessors were.”
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/gay-marriage-the-fastest-formed-orthodoxy-ever/14855#.U0jCU_nxqBR
What on earth was Chelsea Manning doing in the military?
Friday, April 11th, 2014. By the Chelsea Manning Support Network
Today, the nation’s largest Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Pride Celebration Committee announced on its website that WikiLeaks whistle-blower Chelsea Manning has been chosen to represent the event as a 2014 Honorary Grand Marshal.
Manning thanked the San Francisco Pride Committee from Fort Leavenworth military prison, declaring, “As a trans* woman, I appreciate the Pride movement’s significant role in bringing together diverse communities and elevating the public profile of the fight for queer rights. I have always enjoyed attending Pride celebrations given the opportunity, and I’m deeply honored to receive this title.” Manning explained that she prefers “Trans*” (with an asterisk) to denote not only transgender men and women, but also those who identify outside of a gender binary.
http://www.chelseamanning.org/featured/chelsea-manning-to-represent-largest-u-s-lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-pride-celebration-in-2014
He’s in a military prison apparently able to make public statements.
TJ, did you know that Brendon Eich’s 1000 donation was the result of a leak from someone at the IRS? I’m telling you man, all wars escalate until someone says uncle. The left understands these fights better than the right. In war, you have to make the other party feel pain; simple words are a meaningless joke. I don’t use Mozilla, but I’ve heard a lot of people are switching.
I should say knowledge of the 1000 dollar donatio
AJ: u should just write-out ur comments rather than posting these dreary vids, forcing us to listen to all the babble for minutes on end, waiting for u to come to a conclusion–u’ve got a problem w. these vids–u seem to be addicted to them, imagining u make more sense than if u just wrote things out in words. I remember I made similar pt. on ur blog and u got mad and told me not to come to ur site, ho ho ho ho. If u got something to say, just spit it out–rather than babbling and babbling and babbling. If u can’t just write something down in words, don’t waste time babbling on a vid.