OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[Dragonbums]

No one said anything about violating rights; this is a moral/ethical issue. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

So what exactly isn't right here? OKCupid announcing a public record fact about a person's monetary involvement in a political bill and simply giving alternatives to other browsers whose CEO's don't do the same thing? Are we as the consumers not allowed to use alternative programs in light of new information about a company or head of said company?

What is the "wrong" thing here? How is this moral and ethically wrong? This happens all the time.

It makes me wonder where the heck you guys were when it was revealed that there was a massive boycott against JC Penny for hiring Ellen to be their spokesperson.

You're behind consumer rights in spite of facts. And while a boycott is technically a personal choice, this propaganda was undeniably going to be about more than that.

In spite of what facts? The facts of what happened are already there. Eich funded Prop8. OKCupid found out and made a message suggesting users in support of LGBTQ+ rights to simply use other browsers.

Some people did, some people didn't. Regardless the people at Mozilla still decided to let the guy go due to the potential harm it could cause to their own image.

Now this is a boycott? Of what exactly? What is the propaganda your talking about? OKCupid since then from my knowledge has only posted that solitary message since this whole thing started. That's it.

Where is this smear campaign against Eich himself that you speak of?

Anyone could have predicted the explosiveness due to the sensitivity of the issue. What OKC did was cheap, undeserved and was going to do irreparable damage, and for one private political donation to cause this, that's bull crap.

How is what they did cheap? This is a fact of what Eich did. He donated to Prop8, OKCupid announces it to their relevant demographic. They didn't dig into the man's personal life. The site doesn't have the funds, people, or shits to even begin to do that. This was public information. Anyone could of done this.

Of course Prop8 was a sensitive issue. It was a bill that took away the rights once afforded to gay people in California. Of course anybody who put their name on the donation list of that bill did so knowing the risks of being found out. Case in point, it probably wasn't in Eich's best interest to be CEO of Mozilla- the company whose whole images is built up on equality for all knowing he funded the bill. Someone was going to spill the beans. Or at the very least look at the donors list of the fucking bill.

And don't put this on the company like they were in the driver's seat.

Why not? Mozilla was well aware of what Eich did long before they hired him over 25 other candidates. Why exactly should they be exempt from the consequences of such actions.

Action was taken to preserve Mozilla's name/integrity. His resignation was an act of sacrifice out of the necessity of damage control.

Well duh, a company that's mission statement is "equality and rights for all" having a guy in charge who funded a bill that took away rights of a specific demographic is pretty bad stuff for a company like Mozilla. So of course after this fiasco they were finally going to let him go.

 

[AgedGrunt]

/snip

I've made no mention of God and don't care about religious beliefs when it comes to marriage law. Everyone currently has a right to marry; what constitutes a marriage is at issue. All Eich did was involve himself in defining marriage; he has just as much right as people who believe a marriage should include same-sex couples.

This is how a free country works, it's not to be dominated by self-righteous people. That's kind of what ticks people off about the religious who believe they're morally superior and things should just be the way they see them. You're not a hypocrite, are you?

For the record, I support a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between two people, regardless of gender, and limited to one marriage per person at a time. That language does not exist, so until there is supreme law, no, there really isn't a civil right being denied. Look back into American history and you will find how real rights were won. People are assuming rights that don't yet exist.

/snip

Have you read the banner? [http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/31/okcupid-offers-firefox-visitors-links-to-alternate-browsers-to-protest-new-mozilla-ceo/] Bolds are mine.

>Brendan Eich is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples.
Misleading, no context provided, no explanation.
>We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.
Well that's hardly spreading awareness, is it? Sounds more like "we don't like your kind here anymore".
>If individuals like Mr. Rich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we've worked so hard to bring about would be illegal.
Misinformation. Relationships are not the same as a marriage, and many states have same-sex marriage laws. With DOMA struck down, this is a whopper.
>Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.
Flagrant libel. Publishing damaging misrepresentation, especially knowingly (i.e. it wasn't a factual mistake) is a crime.

They also suggest using Safari and Internet Explorer in the choices over Firefox. Also near-criminal.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Except for the points you keep avoiding; incest, control, abuse. Why are you so determined to ignore other factors, especially ones which are so vital?

Yes, procreation between known relatives is an issue, but not between relatives of the same sex. I take then that for you two brothers are fine, but brother and sister no?
And since we are here, where it is written that marriage must imply reproduction or even sex? If they wanted to have sex, they could do it also outside of wedlock, so where is the reason for this limitation?

I'm not even sure what your objections about "control" and "abuse" are about - they look like entirely subjective to me.

So in other words I was right, you're not going to be campaining any time soon to take rights away from heterosexual marriages which don't involve raising children. ie, you're just making bad excuses in order to justify descrimination against homosexuals.

Actually yes, the essence of my post was precisely that marriage rights - or at least, the economic part of it - should only be granted to those that have children - I believe it being the only solution that is both rational and egalitarian.
Just two generations ago this was not an issue for the reasons explained above, but now definitely is - there is no point in granting freebies just for living together.

You on the other hand still haven't told me on which grounds and for which reasons you think the substantial benefits of marriage should be provided.

Which isn't true and has been pointed out several times already. People can have children outside of marriage and they do.

"Deduction of the consequent" - this is largely irrelevant to my point.

Homosexuals can raise children and they do. You keep repeating the same bogus argument. Homosexuals can and do adopt children, they can and do have children through artifical means and they can and do raise children from previous relationships.

Anyone that raises chidren should receive some form of assistance from the State ragardless of their sexuality. I never said to be against this.

No it's not - the point is that marriage grants preferential treatment. If someone claims that the reason of this preferential treatment should be having children (or trying to) and not just being in love, this is perfectly reasonable, rational and sensible and does not discriminate LGBT people simply because they couldn't get similar rights by being in love - they also can make children like everyone.

Hence, Brendan Eich's position is not "anti" gay or in favor of "discrimination", and does not collides in any way with Mozilla's principle of inclusiveness - regardless of what the pink fascists may say.

Ah so because LGBT want equal rights they are now "pink fascists"? Good to know. I take it you don't like women, black people or Indians, either then? These are all groups who have fought for equality after all, by your reasoning, that makes them fascits, no? And yes it is "anti-gay". Gays CAN raise families, as has already been pointed out to you, many times across many posts. Adoption, Artificial insemmination etc, previous relationships. They can and do raise families. This is the purpose homosexuality serves in nature. Denying the same rights that other people enjoy IS denial of rights. It IS descrimination.

Various Red Herrings, plus you haven't addressed my point.

Your definition of "equality" is arbitrary and fallacious. If so many people are unable to think outside the box like you, it's no wonder such an irrational law has come to pass.

Fallacious? In what way is it fallacious? You haven't given a good reason for denying rights to homosexuals, that has not been countered as false. Equality means having access to the same rights, responsibilities and status, without descrimination. What definition of 'equality' are you using?

As for irrational? Please explain how it's "irrational" to grant equal rights to innocent people? It's irrational to deny rights without good reason and so far neither you nor any other person who's spoken out against gay marriage, has presented any reason or evidence that holds up to any scrutiny. At all.

Again, I never said that sexual tendencies is the reason why marriage enjoys its right - you are claiming it, but that's how you see things and this is essentially a very new take on marriage. My definition of equality is the same as yours, believe it or not, but I am saying, as pretty much the whole world still says, that "being in love" is not a reason to receive preferential treatment from the State: rearing children is, and this, obviously, does not exclude homosexuals.

Make sure you understood my position before critizing it. You have been indoctrinated into believing irrationally that opposition to SS"M" is some form of racism, but you are very clearly missing the broader picture.

 

[wolfyrik]

Yes, procreation between known relatives is an issue, but not between relatives of the same sex. I take then that for you two brothers are fine, but brother and sister no?
And since we are here, where it is written that marriage must imply reproduction or even sex? If they wanted to have sex, they could do it also outside of wedlock, so where is the reason for this limitation?

I'm not even sure what your objections about "control" and "abuse" are about - they look like entirely subjective to me.

3

Wow, you've just compeltely switched positions. Good job. I've pointed out to you several times that relations between same sex relatives are not fine because it opens up abuse and control, which you don't understand. If you don't understand what's wrong with a person having sex with same sex or opposite sex relatives, especially considering how many times it's been explained to you, then there's nothing more I can do.

Actually yes, the essence of my post was precisely that marriage rights - or at least, the economic part of it - should only be granted to those that have children - I believe it being the only solution that is both rational and egalitarian.
Just two generations ago this was not an issue for the reasons explained above, but now definitely is - there is no point in granting freebies just for living together.

You on the other hand still haven't told me on which grounds and for which reasons you think the substantial benefits of marriage should be provided.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with SSM, so using it as an excuse to challenge same sex marriage is irrevelent, as I pointed out to you several posts ago and several times. Your argument now is an argument against all marriages that don't have children. You started out by saying that only straight marriages could involve raising children. Since both gay marriages and straight marriages can involve raising children or not, then your point is entirely moot.

Which isn't true and has been pointed out several times already. People can have children outside of marriage and they do.

"Deduction of the consequent" - this is largely irrelevant to my point.

Appeal to fallacy - fallacy You took my post out of context in order to try create deduction of consequent. In context, I'm challenging your implied position and repeated arguments, that only straight marriages should have access to financial supoport because only straight marriages can be responsible for children. Which is entirely relevent, since that claim is patently false, as the sentence you quoted challenges.

Anyone that raises chidren should receive some form of assistance from the State ragardless of their sexuality. I never said to be against this.

No what you said was

NO, someone is NOT despicable because he holds views different from yours - and pushing to retain marriage as something which is inherently related to procreation does NOT hurt innocent people.

This specific opinion of yours is indefensible, not otherwise - Mozilla's CEO should be proud of his support for Prop8.

This strongly implies that only a straight marriage can have children. Counter to what you're claiming now.

You also said

Certainly, just because someone love someone and that person returns the feeling, he/she shouldn't be entitled to any taxpayers' dough. Because if that was the case, then yeah, I would totally marry my son just to relieve him of any heritage shenanigans.

Otherwise, you would grant additional rights to two citizens simply (I guess) out of their mutual affection, but you are denying the same rights to more than two people in the same situation. Or to blood relatives.

3

"Additional rights" this substantiates the implication and general argument that you're making against SSM.

No it's not - the point is that marriage grants preferential treatment. If someone claims that the reason of this preferential treatment should be having children (or trying to) and not just being in love, this is perfectly reasonable, rational and sensible and does not discriminate LGBT people simply because they couldn't get similar rights by being in love - they also can make children like everyone.

Hence, Brendan Eich's position is not "anti" gay or in favor of "discrimination", and does not collides in any way with Mozilla's principle of inclusiveness - regardless of what the pink fascists may say.

Ah so because LGBT want equal rights they are now "pink fascists"? Good to know. I take it you don't like women, black people or Indians, either then? These are all groups who have fought for equality after all, by your reasoning, that makes them fascits, no? And yes it is "anti-gay". Gays CAN raise families, as has already been pointed out to you, many times across many posts. Adoption, Artificial insemmination etc, previous relationships. They can and do raise families. This is the purpose homosexuality serves in nature. Denying the same rights that other people enjoy IS denial of rights. It IS descrimination.

Various Red Herrings, plus you haven't addressed my point.

Another appeal to fallacy - fallacy. These are not red herrings, they are direct challenges to your claim that marriage should be kept for heterosexuals only because of procreation and that financial aid should only go to straight marriages because of the ability to raise a family. Also challenges against your ad hominem attack against the supportes of SSM as "pink fascists". All points you've implied or directly stated. Disproving you is not a red herring, challenging your abusive language is not a red herring.

Again, I never said that sexual tendencies is the reason why marriage enjoys its right - you are claiming it, but that's how you see things and this is essentially a very new take on marriage. My definition of equality is the same as yours, believe it or not, but I am saying, as pretty much the whole world still says, that "being in love" is not a reason to receive preferential treatment from the State: rearing children is, and this, obviously, does not exclude homosexuals.

Make sure you understood my position before critizing it. You have been indoctrinated into believing irrationally that opposition to SS"M" is some form of racism, but you are very clearly missing the broader picture.

2.

"rearing children" there it is again. Teh claim that only heterosexuals can raise children, which I've demonstrated to be patently false, which you yourself contradicted earlier in the very same post. You're actually arguing against yourself now.

Funny how you would claim that our definition of equality is the same when you said

What a load of bull.

OkCupid is the intolerant one here, pushing the false mantra of "equality" and accusing someone of "DENY love and instead enforce MISERY, SHAME and frustration are our ENEMIES..." simply for being reasonable about marriage. Assholes.

Opposing the irrational nonsense of same-sex "marriage" is not against yours, or anyone else's, human rights: get over it.
But that of course doesn't stop ACTUAL intolerant bigots from accusing those that disagree with them of a MENTAL ILLNESS for standing their ground in support of sanity.

Bah!

1.

Instead of endlessly requoting each other I'm going to TL:dr your posts. Notice those numbers throughout the post? Those are reference points. Your summarised positions are numbered, followed by my responses to them.

1. Allowing Homosexual marriage is "irrational nonsense" and denying it is "sanity"

Speaks for itself I think

2. Only heterosexual marriages can rear children and so only they deserve financial support.

Clearly false; adoption, children from previous relationships, artifical means such as sperm donorship/surrogates. Homosexual couples can and DO raise children.

3. Abusing children is subjective, risk of harm by allowing incest and marrying relatives is only wrong if it results in children

I can't imgine why you would argue these points, to me the harm of allowing incest is blindingly obvious and no, it doesn't just involve offpsring.

4. Allowing eqaulity in marriage for gay couples is denying equality to others

Except that your definition of "equality" is arbitrary and flawed, and opposing it is moral, is legitimate, is liberal:

http://www.themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/17/but-seriously-why-is-polygamy-still-illegal/

By your logic, you are "hurting" and "denying the rights" of Muslims to marry more than one person.

Clearly, patently false. Moving one step closer to equality using existing criteria and rules may not be complete but is absolutely not a hinderence to others.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Oh boy, here we go again...

Yes, procreation between known relatives is an issue, but not between relatives of the same sex. I take then that for you two brothers are fine, but brother and sister no?
And since we are here, where it is written that marriage must imply reproduction or even sex? If they wanted to have sex, they could do it also outside of wedlock, so where is the reason for this limitation?

I'm not even sure what your objections about "control" and "abuse" are about - they look like entirely subjective to me.

Wow, you've just compeltely switched positions. Good job. I've pointed out to you several times that relations between same sex relatives are not fine because it opens up abuse and control, which you don't understand. If you don't understand what's wrong with a person having sex with same sex or opposite sex relatives, especially considering how many times it's been explained to you, then there's nothing more I can do.

No, it's you who made wrong assumptions on my positions in the first place.
You haven't explained why the possibility of "abuse and control", which can happen in any relationship by the way, should prevent relationship between relatives to take place, particularly if they cannot procreate.
Plus you have not addressed my point.

Actually yes, the essence of my post was precisely that marriage rights - or at least, the economic part of it - should only be granted to those that have children - I believe it being the only solution that is both rational and egalitarian.
Just two generations ago this was not an issue for the reasons explained above, but now definitely is - there is no point in granting freebies just for living together.

You on the other hand still haven't told me on which grounds and for which reasons you think the substantial benefits of marriage should be provided.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with SSM, so using it as an excuse to challenge same sex marriage is irrevelent, as I pointed out to you several posts ago and several times. Your argument now is an argument against all marriages that don't have children. You started out by saying that only straight marriages could involve raising children. Since both gay marriages and straight marriages can involve raising children or not, then your point is entirely moot.

The possibility of adoption is not a sufficient requirement for a union to be called "marriage"; two family friends of mine who ended up living together rescued a girl from her abusive family and, effectively, adopted her. My grandfahter was raised by an uncle and grandmother after his parents died.
in a pinch, any combination of people can raise an orphan - you are basically saying that EVERYONE can marry - but this way, marriage loses any specific connotation (and you still insist it should be between two persons, for... some rason), it stops being anything other than living together.

And since you mentioned it, I will add that steryle couples are a reasonable exception to the rule - procreation even just in potency has some value, and saying that since steryile couples exist SSM should be allowed is a weak argument.
Finally, you haven't told me on which grounds and for which reasons you think the substantial benefits of marriage should be provided.

Appeal to fallacy - fallacy You took my post out of context in order to try create deduction of consequent. In context, I'm challenging your implied position and repeated arguments, that only straight marriages should have access to financial supoport because only straight marriages can be responsible for children. Which is entirely relevent, since that claim is patently false, as the sentence you quoted challenges.

Appeal to "not-knowing-how-to-apply-logical-fallacies-yet-abusing-them-all-the-time". Seriously, I'm not going to quote every single word you wrote to prove you wrong.
I repeat: just because people can have children outside of marriage, this does not mean that the importance of marriage as a stable union to generate children is lessened.

This strongly implies that only a straight marriage can have children. Counter to what you're claiming now.

No, it doesn't imply that - you can have children outside of marriage, but only a man and a woman can have children.
Marriage is the name we chose - arbitrarily, if you like - to call such a union; either way, a child-bearing union (even just potentially) is not equivalent to one that is inherently steryle.

Another appeal to fallacy - fallacy. These are not red herrings, they are direct challenges to your claim that marriage should be kept for heterosexuals only because of procreation and that financial aid should only go to straight marriages because of the ability to raise a family. Also challenges against your ad hominem attack against the supportes of SSM as "pink fascists". All points you've implied or directly stated. Disproving you is not a red herring, challenging your abusive language is not a red herring.

Whatever. Please address my point, it's the third time I'm asking you:
"the point is that marriage grants preferential treatment. If someone claims that the reason of this preferential treatment should be having children (or trying to) and not just being in love, this is perfectly reasonable, rational and sensible and does not discriminate LGBT people simply because they couldn't get similar rights by being in love - they also can make children like everyone."

Moving one step closer to equality using existing criteria and rules may not be complete but is absolutely not a hinderence to others.

So, you are admitting there is inequality in excluding poly-amorous unions? You are still hurting them and denying their rights nonetheless, regardless how close you are to "equality".

 

[wolfyrik]

Oh boy, here we go again...

No, it's you who made wrong assumptions on my positions in the first place.
You haven't explained why the possibility of "abuse and control", which can happen in any relationship by the way, should prevent relationship between relatives to take place, particularly if they cannot procreate.
Plus you have not addressed my point.

Yes, here we go again...
I really can't understand why you're unable to grasp the incredibly simple premise that incest is dangerous, or how absue can take place. It boggles the mind that you don't understand the need to protect, in law, children from sexual abuse and yes that IS what we're talking about here. Allowing incest would be to open up children to sexual abuse, to legalise it, because all that a relative would have to do, is manipulte and firghten the child into "consent". I put consent in paretheses because children cannot give consent. By law, they are unable. This is to protect them from abuse. And yes, abuse can occur in any relationship, but that doesn't make it ok to carry out that harm on children. I'm truly astonished that you seem to think otherwise.

You still haven't actually detailed hwo this is in any way relevent to allowing same sex marriage. Since gay marriage law does not in any way, shape or form, repeal incest law.

Oh, and addressed your point? You asked where it's written that marriage is required for procereation? Well for one thing, you made that claim by implication. Several times, as I've already detailed and quoted in previous posts. By even asking that question you are contradicting yourself.

the possibility of adoption is not a sufficient requirement for a union to be called "marriage"; two family friends of mine who ended up living together rescued a girl from her abusive family and, effectively, adopted her. My grandfahter was raised by an uncle and grandmother after his parents died.
in a pinch, any combination of people can raise an orphan - you are basically saying that EVERYONE can marry - but this way, marriage loses any specific connotation (and you still insist it should be between two persons, for... some rason), it stops being anything other than living together.

Strawman argument at best. Marriage without financial benefit, is still an act of two people recognising their love in a civil union, people don't get married in order to get benefits, as you bizarrely seem to be suggesting, they get married because they want to formalise their loving relationship. This is something that occurred even before the financial benefits you're so obsessed with, even existed(if they even exist, you haven't actually demonstrated them). This is something that occurred before the church and relevent governments even existed. Marriage is not, was not and never has been soley for the purpose of procreation or your phantom financial gain. So you know a couple who adopted, great! What your point? You claimed that marriage was for the purpose of raising children and financial aid and that only heterosexual couples can procreate ergo, only heterosexual couples should have access to marriage. The fact that this claim is false on every front is your problem, not mine. Your false definition, your error. Your definition fails because gay couples can and do also raise children, ergo should be elligible for the same financial benefits. Marriage retains it's specific connotation because it's connotation is the formalisation of a relationship.

Your bizarre criteria for what constitutes marriage can be easily demonstrated false by the existence of commonlaw and unwed families. Couples who have children together but choose not to marry. There is literally no difference between a commonlaw couple with children and a married coupled with children, except for the formalisation of their relationship through the civil act of marriage. Commonlaw couples are afforded the same rights and benefits under the law as married couples. Since both gay and straight couples can choose whether or not to raise children, since they both can love each other, why shouldn't both be allowed to formalise their relationship?

And since you mentioned it, I will add that steryle couples are a reasonable exception to the rule - procreation even just in potency has some value, and saying that since steryile couples exist SSM should be allowed is a weak argument.
Finally, you haven't told me on which grounds and for which reasons you think the substantial benefits of marriage should be provided.

Nor do I need to. You're the one challenging marriage, not me. You haven't actually defined what the "substantial benefits" even are. You absolutely haven't demonstrated them. You're trying to use another fallacious argument, shifting the burden of proof. You're the one making the postive claim, it's for you to demonstrate. How can I possibly demonstrate grounds for a boogeyman you invented? Heck, even if there is a "substantial benefit" to marriage, your only example of this has been providing funds for families. Which as I've already demonstrated, applies to both gay and straight couples, since both can raise families and applies to both married and unmarried straight couples. Why should gay families be banned from receiving the same benefits as straight couples when their expenses are the same? That's descrimination plain and simple, nothing more. What difference does it make if the children are born directly to the couple, are born through surrogacy or are adopted? The expenses are the same, the children's needs are the same.

Appeal to fallacy - fallacy You took my post out of context in order to try create deduction of consequent. In context, I'm challenging your implied position and repeated arguments, that only straight marriages should have access to financial supoport because only straight marriages can be responsible for children. Which is entirely relevent, since that claim is patently false, as the sentence you quoted challenges.

Appeal to "not-knowing-how-to-apply-logical-fallacies-yet-abusing-them-all-the-time". Seriously, I'm not going to quote every single word you wrote to prove you wrong.
I repeat: just because people can have children outside of marriage, this does not mean that the importance of marriage as a stable union to generate children is lessened.

Appeal to ridicule fallacy. You can't defend your posiition or answer my challenge, so you try to make fun of it. The fact that you falsely attributed fallacy to my position, isn't my fault.

Plus your argument here is just plain baseless assertion. The fact that children are born without marriage completely contradicts your claim that marriage is necessary for procreation. I don't see how marriage is needed for stability either, you certainly haven't demonstrated that it is. If a non-married couple can raise children as well as a married couple, what difference does marriage make? You haven't demonstrated that marriage makes anything more successful and I see no evidence to support your claim.

No, it doesn't imply that - you can have children outside of marriage, but only a man and a woman can have children.
Marriage is the name we chose - arbitrarily, if you like - to call such a union; either way, a child-bearing union (even just potentially) is not equivalent to one that is inherently steryle.

No it isn't. We call it having children or pregnancy. Marriage is the name we give to people formalising their relationship. As for your false equivilency, how is a marriage between an inherenly steryle couple, any different for a sterile couple? The result is the same. They have children through surrogacy, adoption, rasie children from previous relationships or not at all. The sterile couple doesn't get married in order to have children, they get married to formalise their relationship. Why shouldn't the inherently sterile couple have access to the same rights afforded the sterile couple? That's just plain descrimination. Nothing more. There is no down side to allowing it. There is no harm borne to anyone else because of it, just as there is none for the sterile couple. It doesn't change things for fertile couples, so what difference does it make?

Whatever. Please address my point, it's the third time I'm asking you:
"the point is that marriage grants preferential treatment. If someone claims that the reason of this preferential treatment should be having children (or trying to) and not just being in love, this is perfectly reasonable, rational and sensible and does not discriminate LGBT people simply because they couldn't get similar rights by being in love - they also can make children like everyone."

In otherwords, you ignored my challenge because you couldn't asnwer it. Oh and that's not a question, it's a claim I've already demonstrated as false. What exactly do you want me to answer here?

Moving one step closer to equality using existing criteria and rules may not be complete but is absolutely not a hinderence to others.

So, you are admitting there is inequality in excluding poly-amorous unions? You are still hurting them and denying their rights nonetheless, regardless how close you are to "equality".

Entirely false. Please demonstrate how increasing access to rights, is taking rights away. Your claim is self-contradictory.
Poly-amory is more difficult to define into law, this is a fact inherent ot the existing legal system, and would remain the same even if gay marriage were not allowed. Allowing gay nmarriage doesn't affect poly-amorous relationships postively or negatively. You're falsely attributing existing dilemmas to the subject to lead to a false conclusion. This is the very definition of a red-herring argument. Funny that you should keep committing the same fallacy, you falsely accused me of earlier. It's is the present legal system of marriage which has a problem with polygamous relationships, not same sex marriage.

 

[Something Amyss]

It doesn't, that's why I brought it up.

You brought up something that makes no difference to the argument because it makes no difference.

That makes no sense.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Right - I feel there is still too much ambivalence around definitions in our debate - let me take a small break from replying in order to better clarify at least some.

The reason why heterosexual coupling is relevant to the State is precisely because of the contribution it provides to society: this type of stable union, that implies a sexual relationship and that is open to procreation has been named through the history in all cultures and countries, arbitrarily if you like, with words that translate into english as "marriage"; let's call it "Traditional Marriage" (TM), for now.

It is precisely because of the high cost in terms of both resources and commitment required to generate physically and psychologically healthy children, that TM has been often provided with advantages also of economical nature. This is part of the history of marriage, not of my "argument".

Anyone can be in love, in different ways and may act differently because of it ("Romantic Marriage", or RM). Purely because of their love, they are not entitled to preferential treatment. I don't see why the State should be concerned with "formalizing romantic love between individuals", and if it does, it certainly should not end up treating the loving couple/tris/poker different from any other citizen.

Problem is that right now, as a consequence of advances in contraceptives technology, heterosexuals can marry without having children and still get access to marriage benefits; I find this illiberal for obvious reasons, and think TM should be amended to reflect that.

Then there's adoption - and I already agreed that the moment any individual, groups of individuals or people in a TM or RM adopt a child, they should get the same treatment of TM.
Of course I maintain that a replacement for the children original parents who are also an example of a union able to procreate are the ideal match.

I assert that SSM, if should exist, should definitely fall under RM.
The vast majority of people I debated understood the relevance of this argument immediately. The fact that we are still here without you even having acknowledge it is... surprising me.

I really can't understand why you're unable to grasp the incredibly simple premise that incest is dangerous, or how absue can take place. It boggles the mind that you don't understand the need to protect, in law, children from sexual abuse and yes that IS what we're talking about here. Allowing incest would be to open up children to sexual abuse, to legalise it, because all that a relative would have to do, is manipulte and firghten the child into "consent". I put consent in paretheses because children cannot give consent. By law, they are unable. This is to protect them from abuse. And yes, abuse can occur in any relationship, but that doesn't make it ok to carry out that harm on children. I'm truly astonished that you seem to think otherwise.

You still haven't actually detailed hwo this is in any way relevent to allowing same sex marriage. Since gay marriage law does not in any way, shape or form, repeal incest law.

I never mentioned marriage between adults and children, incest can and does happen between consenting adults.
The reason this is relevant with gay marriage is, since you would like to redefine marriage in a way that makes procreation incidental or irrelevant (as a RM), surely there is no reason to prevent close relatives to marry. Otherwise, please explain what your definition and requirements for marriage should be and why you would forbade incest.

This is my point - you cannot remove the relation between marriage and procreation and at the same time keep the restrictions that come from it. If marriage is a contract between two (or more) parties that has no special requirements and confer benefits to the parties, I see no point in applying a door policy to it.

Strawman argument at best. Marriage without financial benefit, is still an act of two people recognising their love in a civil union, people don't get married in order to get benefits, as you bizarrely seem to be suggesting, they get married because they want to formalise their loving relationship. This is something that occurred even before the financial benefits you're so obsessed with, even existed(if they even exist, you haven't actually demonstrated them). This is something that occurred before the church and relevent governments even existed. Marriage is not, was not and never has been soley for the purpose of procreation or your phantom financial gain. So you know a couple who adopted, great! What your point? You claimed that marriage was for the purpose of raising children and financial aid and that only heterosexual couples can procreate ergo, only heterosexual couples should have access to marriage. The fact that this claim is false on every front is your problem, not mine. Your false definition, your error.

Your definition fails because gay couples can and do also raise children, ergo should be elligible for the same financial benefits. Marriage retains it's specific connotation because it's connotation is the formalisation of a relationship.
Your bizarre criteria for what constitutes marriage can be easily demonstrated false by the existence of commonlaw and unwed families. Couples who have children together but choose not to marry. There is literally no difference between a commonlaw couple with children and a married coupled with children, except for the formalisation of their relationship through the civil act of marriage. Commonlaw couples are afforded the same rights and benefits under the law as married couples. Since both gay and straight couples can choose whether or not to raise children, since they both can love each other, why shouldn't both be allowed to formalise their relationship?

In that case let me reiterate that any number of any people can raise children, in a pinch - and this includes close relatives.
So according to your bizarre reasoning any combination of people should be able to marry without any limits?

Adoption is not the same thing, and doesn't hold the same importance, of procreating. The traditional definition of marriage does not include adoption as a sufficient condition for it, and with good reason.

Nor do I need to. You're the one challenging marriage, not me. You haven't actually defined what the "substantial benefits" even are. You absolutely haven't demonstrated them. You're trying to use another fallacious argument, shifting the burden of proof. You're the one making the postive claim, it's for you to demonstrate. How can I possibly demonstrate grounds for a boogeyman you invented? Heck, even if there is a "substantial benefit" to marriage, your only example of this has been providing funds for families. Which as I've already demonstrated, applies to both gay and straight couples, since both can raise families and applies to both married and unmarried straight couples. Why should gay families be banned from receiving the same benefits as straight couples when their expenses are the same? That's descrimination plain and simple, nothing more. What difference does it make if the children are born directly to the couple, are born through surrogacy or are adopted? The expenses are the same, the children's needs are the same.

In many western countries married couples get tax breaks, residence permits if one of them is not a citizen of the same country, and pension reversibility. Those are all services that have a cost for the taxpayers.
TM and procreation fulfill a different, fundamental role than adoption; just because -everyone- can potentially raise a child it doesn't mean they are entitled to the same benefits until they actually do.

The fact that children are born without marriage completely contradicts your claim that marriage is necessary for procreation.

Never claimed that.

I don't see how marriage is needed for stability either, you certainly haven't demonstrated that it is. If a non-married couple can raise children as well as a married couple, what difference does marriage make? You haven't demonstrated that marriage makes anything more successful and I see no evidence to support your claim.

I would have no problem whatsoever if the State kept itself completely out of the marriage business; actually, this could be a preferable, truly equal solution to this ongoing conundrum...
...except that offering a reward for a moral use of natural sexuality is an effective bait and switch to push more people to make babies. Most modern industrialized societies have fallen far below the number of children per couple required to sustain themselves demographically.

Marriage is the name we give to people formalising their relationship.

It this your only definition of marriage?

As for your false equivilency, how is a marriage between an inherenly steryle couple, any different for a sterile couple? The result is the same. They have children through surrogacy, adoption, rasie children from previous relationships or not at all. The sterile couple doesn't get married in order to have children, they get married to formalise their relationship. Why shouldn't the inherently sterile couple have access to the same rights afforded the sterile couple? That's just plain descrimination. Nothing more. There is no down side to allowing it. There is no harm borne to anyone else because of it, just as there is none for the sterile couple. It doesn't change things for fertile couples, so what difference does it make?

If they know they are steryle, and there is no cure for their sterility, than their should be a RM until (and if) they end up adopting someone. Which bears the interesting question of whether or not sterility tests should become mandatory in order to enforce equality...

In otherwords, you ignored my challenge because you couldn't asnwer it. Oh and that's not a question, it's a claim I've already demonstrated as false. What exactly do you want me to answer here?

I asked you if you think that people in (your definition of) a marriage should receive preferential treatment over people that are not married.
For sake of comparison, in TM the presence of offsprings, or the commitment to have them, are reasons I consider perfectly valid for benefits.

Entirely false. Please demonstrate how increasing access to rights, is taking rights away. Your claim is self-contradictory.

Simple - if you are selectively increasing access to additional rights that historically exist for a specific reason (the possibility of procreation) to people that cannot procreate you are establishing the base for effectively denying those rights. This applies also to heterosexuals, of course, and is the reason current marriage implementation is flawed.

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." (Aristotle)

Poly-amory is more difficult to define into law, this is a fact inherent ot the existing legal system, and would remain the same even if gay marriage were not allowed. Allowing gay nmarriage doesn't affect poly-amorous relationships postively or negatively. You're falsely attributing existing dilemmas to the subject to lead to a false conclusion. This is the very definition of a red-herring argument. Funny that you should keep committing the same fallacy, you falsely accused me of earlier. It's is the present legal system of marriage which has a problem with polygamous relationships, not same sex marriage.

It's true that it's difficult, but if you believe that access to RM is fundamental human right, it would be hypocritical not treating poly-amorous couples equally as well - after all, when people form a company there are rights that deal with their mutual responsibilities in regard to their participation in it, including when people joins or leave the company - it cannot be too hard to come up with something for polygamy/polyandry as well.

In TM the problem of polylove is less pronounced - the restriction to just two individuals exist so that both parents have the same responsibility to their offsprings, being so that each person is also a biological parent; - RM would have much more problem explaining an arbitrary headcount of two.

But hey, I am not against even complex and convoluted changes to the law in order to allow polygamy - polyamorous unions sound fun in the bedroom