You fail to see my point.
1. You can never convert an entire society into the Christian belief that sex is sacred, because it's not. The fact that you are a Christian makes your viewpoint blaringly subjective.
Subjectivity does not equate to falsehood.
The gays on this thread are subjective and bias as well, so are those who player hate on religion.
My arguements against gay marriage and adoption are secular, stop trying to simply dismiss them becuase of their authors religious affialiations, simply as a means of getting out of having to respond to them, which it would appear you are often unable to.
2. Why should an entire society have to be under the spell that sex is sacred and only allowed to have sex once in a while when they want a baby, because a few idiot teens can't use birth control? Once again, I state that we need proper birth control methods taught to teens in order to minimise unplanned pregnancy.
Chances of actually getting pregnant are like 2% anyway... Its not like everytime you have sex you're going to have a baby, stop exaggerating the sacrifice expected of you.
And as I already established, your arguements of birth control are moot, as absintence is the most effective form of bith control there is, so argueing for birth control, would logically be supportive of promoting abstinence.
Why should they? Sex is readily available, and it actually does value love. Ever heard of relationships being saved because of increased sex lives?
If you require a constant stream of orgasm in order to justify your love for someone, I think that says something about how much you actually love them.
While yes, complete self control is admirable, it's not needed at all! Watch this: I'm now going to declare that no one can fatty, greasy or sugary foods. The only way to stop this obesity/diabetes problem, is for everybody to abstain completely from these foods.
There is more to preventing obesity than diet, excercise for exmaple. Simply abstaining in this sense will not eqaute to heathiness, however will increase a persons health ofc.
Sexual abstinence on the other hand is all that is required, to prevent STI infection and pregnancy.
And because everybody doesn't, we live in a society that doesn't value self control! It's authoritarian mindlessness at it's best! Just because a bunch of illiterate Palestinian nomads from 2000 years ago were a little taboo about enjoying sex, we don't have to be.
I never mentioned the Bible, in regards to abstinence in this context.
I simply argued that promoting it is the only method we can hope to reverse the sick, exploitive sexual culture which we have allowed to gain a stranglehold over our society.
Once again, the most effective way to stop murder, is for people to never murder people. It also reduces the amount of grieving families.
Yea... exactly, grass roots solution, not simply a cover up aimed at reducing consequences.
And once again, it's highly impractical, and your view of a Utopian theocracy is not going to happen.
And why can't it? Why can't we value self contorl and abstinence?
It is hardly impossible.
Cool story. Now lets stop you bothering everyone else who isn't. Allow them the choice to exercise their liberty. Yes, read that again. Liberty.
Promoting abstinence and condeming promiscuisity and sex outside of marriage does not infringe on anyones liberty.
1. That's not really fair to unmarried couples, i acutally know a couple who are unmarried but raising a daughter just like any other married couple. Surely they deserve these benefits?
They probably get many of them, things like the baby bonus or w/e it is called, and maternity leave etc.
2. Even if it is the case that the benefits should be given to married couples, then the government should only give these benefits to married couples with children.
I admit the system could be run differently to how it is atm, but regardless it is still promoting heterosexual unions as special and essential for society.
Good point, but in planned births at least, one of the considerations a couple goes through is if they have the financial means to support the child, i don't think if they would if they can't at least save something up for the child.
And unplanned births wouldn't be saving up for a child anyway.
9 months is a fairly long time. It should give most couples enough time, I would think, to organise some funds (plus the additional support from goernment when they actually do have the child) to get things ready.
But, practically speaking the government could just increase the benefits at first to make up for this time or let the benefits start at conception. In fact, there are probably a few ways this could be covered.
Yeah it could, as I said the system could be run differently, but regardless, the government is still endorsing the institution of marriage and the "trational" family.
But not for homosexuals, a shame because marriage would help a community which is something like 4 x likely to engage in sexually risky behavior.
And what exactly about granting gay couples the title of marriage and a handful of tax benefits (which they don't merit but anyway...) is going to encourage them to avoid these risky sex practises?
That's are large leap you're making here. I imagine a child growing up would have most of his friends mainly with parents that are opposite sex couples, i can't imagine them growing up with this attitude in a mainly heterosexual environment.
Maybe so, but a few sleepovers or w/e is not going to give them the true experience of what it feels like to be raised, and loved by a mother and father.
Part of the thing, is for a child to see their mother and father care for each other and show affection. It teaches things like how members of the opposite sex should act towards one another (lets face it, most people are straight, so this is fiarly important), particularly for young males etc.
Well here you're just speculating.
Gender of two parents unimportant.
What part of the article should I be looking at, there seems to be nothing here that relates to the point you're trying to make.
Perhaps a quote?
Its not like the sexes of the two parents are completely interchangeable variables, which will amount to the same end result.
I don't think the hammer deserves benefits just for being a hammer but for the nailing it does
I would disagree, becuase the government is trying to encourage more hammer heads and handles to combine into hammers, since hammers meet a vital social interest.
Not only is the government giving extra rewards for hammers which, "hammer" things, but it is also expresing support for the institution itself (marriage).
Why should the government selectively support the creation of famililes of hetero couples, but not homo couples which can function more or less in the same way.
This would be an acceptable arguement if homo couples were in fact equal to hetero couples, but the fact of the matter is they are not.
A homo couple cannot concieve, and so, despite the natural desires of gays to be parents, they should be denied adoption priveldges in the interests of the child. A type of union which universally is unable to create children, should not be tasked with raising children.
Well they should adopt/artificially conceive and then receive these benefits.
No they shouldn't, becuase if allowed to adopt, then it would only be as a fall back option reall for the government.
The government wants to endorse those relationships which meet this vital social purpose, procreation. Gays still cannot procreate, and such the government should continue to deny benefits to such couples.
That said, they porbably might qualify for support for the child directly anyway, support for schooling costs and the like etc etc.
Untrue if homo couples were able to adopt/artificially conceive.
If gays adopt then they are still not responsible for anything, since they did not bring the child into existence, but are parasitic on a heterosexual couple to do so.
Artificial conceiving should not be available for either gay or straight couples. Children are not commodities, to be ordered from a laboratory. That is sick.
