UN Passes Gay Rights Protection ResolutionFollow

And I make about as much sense.

Not exactly. The benefits exist as an incentive to get couples who might otherwise create offspring outside of a socio-economic structure best suited for child-rearing (ie: marriage) to do so within said structure. The benefits are not designed just to make child rearing easier.



That would be a false assumption. Don't assume that I hold my position for the exactly opposite reason you hold yours. It's a common failing.



Adoption is a choice. Making that choice, one should be prepared and able to take care of the children you adopt. This is not to say that I don't support gay couples entering into a civil and legally binding marriage as a means to creating a better environment for raising children if they choose to adopt them, but that has nothing to do with the government creating benefits for the couple.

We're trying to correct for the problem of men and women having sex together and producing children without the two of them as a couple being bound together in some way. If gay couples want to choose to do this that's wonderful for them. But it'll never happen accidentally, or as a natural consequence of their sexual activity. It will statistically happen (at a great rate) among heterosexual couples, so there's a need and value for the government to step in and create some sort of incentive/reward for them if they marry. Preferably, said benefits should apply *before* they have children, else it does not act as an incentive.



"Marriage" does. And no one's stopping gay couples from entering into a legally binding civil/social marriage contract. In fact, the Domestic Partnership law in California honestly goes several steps farther than I think is necessary for gay couples either. Again, they have the luxury of choice. No gay couple will accidentally find themselves pregnant, will they?



No biggie. The annoying thing for me is that this is the zillionth time someone has asked the exact same questions you just did. And I give the exact same answers every single time. Then the thread spins off on some tangents about how I can't be right because someone doesn't understand what I'm saying. Then I spend several pages clarifying exactly what I just said above. Then someone insists that marriage isn't about incentive. Then I spend several more pages explaining what I just explained to Joph about the difference between why someone wants something versus why someone else gives it to them. And then someone will inevitably ask the same questions you just asked and I'll be forced to explain the whole thing again. Then about 10 pages later, without ever having really provided a valid refutation of what I'm arguing, I'll get called a bigot and a homophobe, someone will insist that I'm a closet homosexual in denial, and the whole thing will devolve from there.


That's how these threads usually go. We have one about every six months or so. Good times!

Wait?! It's wrong to point out that the reasons people want things are different than the reasons other people give them to them?


It's not wrong. It's absolutely true. Can you even find a case where it's not?



Huh? This is the point I was making to Joph, to which you said my logic was flawed. WTF?


What do you think I'm saying that is wrong? Because you seem to be confused.

I never commented on reason people want things being different than the reasons people give those things. I commented on the logic you used to prove your point, and how you needed the converse to be true, not that claim you made.

We're doing first-order predicate logic here.

-Call "I want to create an incentive for you" variable "A."
-Call "I might just give you something you want" variable "B."

You said "If A, then B." However, the truth condition everyone agrees on is B, not A. So your argument is "If A, then B; B is true, therefore A." This is not logically correct. You require the logical converse of this to prove your point. "If B, then A; B is true, therefore A."

You can't use this argument to prove your case. "If I want to create an incentive for you, I might just give you something you want," or any equivalent variation of this statement cannot be used to prove your point.

Edited, Jun 22nd 2011 6:29pm by Allegory

Wouldn't that be sentential or propositional logic? Otherwise, that's true.

I like how, in your world, having children biologically isn't a choice.

ITS THE ONLY ARGUMENT I NEED SHAWN.

beating a dead horse here, but gay people can and do have children...

Still goin...

"Naturally" in gbaji-land does not include getting artificially inseminated.

My friends mother fits in this category. She has four kids from a previous marriage.

I wasn't even talking about artificial insemination. I only know one person who got pregnant that way, and they are straight - they just REALLY wanted to be a single mom or something.

All the lesbians I know who have kids did it the old fashioned way, most before they came out, a couple after...

Edited, Jun 27th 2011 2:39pm by Olorinus

I don't know anyone who has used that method... although I have heard it works. But that's just AI... anyway, I don't get what it matters how someone gets pregnant anyhow. I severely doubt even gbaji is arguing that people who have kids through artificial insemination shouldn't count as parents or whatever.

Also WTH is a knuckle baby?

Edited, Jun 27th 2011 2:46pm by Olorinus