Comments on: Rant On Proposition 8 http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/rant-on-proposition-8/ The Pursuit of the Nature of Things Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:00:20 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Ryan http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/rant-on-proposition-8/#comment-111 Ryan Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:00:20 +0000 http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/?p=130#comment-111 I don't think that you understand; as we have made marriage an institution which is put out by the courts, there's no way that you could justify changing the definition, which states that a man and a woman are a married couple. Not to sound like the pragmatic pain that I am, a coupling of a man and a woman is the natural formation of a family unit, and is the only conceivable means by which a child can be reproduced (although my science may be fuzzy on that). As such, the state should consider that they are essentially re-defining the institution which produces their voters and residents, and as such, should probably take great pains to ensure that there are voters to re-elect them. On a less tangential note, your main argument is that the bearing of children from wedlock being made illegal is of the same nature as 'illegalizing' the idea of homosexual marriages. Some thoughts: -If the state is to not care in the slightest about who you are, then is it not useless to our cause? If the state cares not at all whether you have a continuing tendency to kill people, doesn't this spell the end of the civilized world as we know it? -If the state is, however, to be pragmatic about how it approaches the idea of marriage, and treat every couple only as it applies to the state, shouldn't the state enforce the mass endorsement of fertility treatments, ban gay marriage, and encourage large families? This would make for a much greater taxable population. - In short, if the state is to be disinterested in who you are, then shouldn't it deal mostly in terms of what you can provide as a result of being in this marriage? In the case of a homosexual couple, this would be zero; nothing changes; no children are produced, no stabilizing families are produced; the list continues . . . However; do I encourage Dobson's moralistic, therapeutic, deism? No. This is not my reason for agreeing with the decision of California. Do I hold with Osteen's prosperity gospel, believing that the whole world will be happier and more affluent is gay marriage is opposed? No. Do I believe in any of the swill which has been bandied about during this debate? No. My reason for agreeing with the decision of California is simple; to change the definition of marriage would be like changing the definition of a zucchini because some people didn't find that it suited their taste. Even apart from the Biblical issues associated with marriage, to rearrange a vital institution simply because a minority of the population want VISITING RIGHTS!?!?!? I'm sure that Valentine is not only rolling over in his grave right now, but probably crafting a strongly-worded letter of rebuttal to your overly-liberal hate rant against a moral scheme which brought about civilization, which God put in place. [www.glyph42.wordpress.com], everyone! I don’t think that you understand; as we have made marriage an institution which is put out by the courts, there’s no way that you could justify changing the definition, which states that a man and a woman are a married couple. Not to sound like the pragmatic pain that I am, a coupling of a man and a woman is the natural formation of a family unit, and is the only conceivable means by which a child can be reproduced (although my science may be fuzzy on that). As such, the state should consider that they are essentially re-defining the institution which produces their voters and residents, and as such, should probably take great pains to ensure that there are voters to re-elect them.
On a less tangential note, your main argument is that the bearing of children from wedlock being made illegal is of the same nature as ‘illegalizing’ the idea of homosexual marriages.
Some thoughts:
-If the state is to not care in the slightest about who you are, then is it not useless to our cause? If the state cares not at all whether you have a continuing tendency to kill people, doesn’t this spell the end of the civilized world as we know it?
-If the state is, however, to be pragmatic about how it approaches the idea of marriage, and treat every couple only as it applies to the state, shouldn’t the state enforce the mass endorsement of fertility treatments, ban gay marriage, and encourage large families? This would make for a much greater taxable population.
- In short, if the state is to be disinterested in who you are, then shouldn’t it deal mostly in terms of what you can provide as a result of being in this marriage? In the case of a homosexual couple, this would be zero; nothing changes; no children are produced, no stabilizing families are produced; the list continues . . .

However; do I encourage Dobson’s moralistic, therapeutic, deism? No. This is not my reason for agreeing with the decision of California.

Do I hold with Osteen’s prosperity gospel, believing that the whole world will be happier and more affluent is gay marriage is opposed? No.

Do I believe in any of the swill which has been bandied about during this debate? No. My reason for agreeing with the decision of California is simple; to change the definition of marriage would be like changing the definition of a zucchini because some people didn’t find that it suited their taste.

Even apart from the Biblical issues associated with marriage, to rearrange a vital institution simply because a minority of the population want VISITING RIGHTS!?!?!? I’m sure that Valentine is not only rolling over in his grave right now, but probably crafting a strongly-worded letter of rebuttal to your overly-liberal hate rant against a moral scheme which brought about civilization, which God put in place.

[www.glyph42.wordpress.com], everyone!

]]>