Are there any legitimate philosophical arguments in support of same-sex marriage?

A large portion of the population base desires it and in a democratic society that makes it an inherently important issue.

this is really a new low for Veeky Forums, I feel like a peterson thread would be a palate cleanser after this garbage, like taking away the taste of a wet, sticky dog shit full of maggots with a nice, dry flavourless cowpat

But if, hypothetically, there were votes in these western democracies and according to popular vote, it was rejected, would I be wrong in assuming that gay advocates would not consider this to be "right" or "just"? Is it just mob rule that decides truth? Because people certainly feel that it is a moral issue that goes beyond popular demand.

It's an attempt at sympathetic magick desu. Homosexuals are trying to gain legitimacy through language. Which has actually worked, so, the justification appears to be "the effectiveness of sympathetic magick in establishing social standing and its efficacy as a component of inner alchemy"

The mob decides whether or not is passes or not, you can have your own individual opinion on whether or not it was right or wrong. Regardless if a large enough percentage of the population desires something then it is not a meaningless issue and requires attention.

I don't know why. Does it sound combative? Am I not allowed to question things? I actually want book/philosopher recommendations on the subject. So that I can read it. Because I like to read as widely as possible, hopefully so I don't turn into someone like you.

I like this. Thank you. Probably the best argument I've seen.

In an absolutely monarchy (enlightened) or a constitutional republic (basically just a government that sees itself as protecting basic human rights and doing not much else beyond that), would same-sex marriage be legalized? I get that it's not a small thing if the majority of the public wants something, but does it not matter why? Or anything beyond popular demand?

So if you choose to stick your genitals in a baby, that's fine with you?

I was simply countering your point that it was a meaningless issue by pointing out that large-scale public opinion has weight in and of itself regardless of the merits of their opinions.

If you're looking for justification as to why gay people desire same-sex marriage my take on it is that once it has been legalized it will allow gay couples to feel "normal" and legitimized like heterosexual couples and may lead to others changing their opinions and prejudices on gay couples which is obviously quite desirable for gay people.

Got sauces?

>The mob decides whether or not is passes or not
Except that's not been the case. Gay Marriage was voted down by referendums and passed through the Court system (here in the US)

The US is not a democracy and I clearly said democracy.

I can see that. I kind of assumed that it was gay Christians that desired same-sex marriage in the beginning as a way to legitimize sexual relations. I may be wrong, but I thought gay advocacy groups decades ago were pretty against "normalizing" homosexuality.

But I can see your point. Thanks.

No problem at all, glad you enjoyed it. It's sickening how single mothers are so praised in the media when they cause so much harm in western society. If the father died or was a genuinely awful human being who physically/sexually assaulted or routinely threatened to physically/sexually assault the mother/children (she shouldn't have gotten pregnant with the children of such a piece of trash but I digress) then she could use some support, for sure, but the VAST majority of single mothers are greedy and selfish. They're fine with fucking with the father and treating the child(ren) as a pay cheque just so that they can get some money for up to 18-21 years. After that, even the mother suffers.

Often times single mothers will live off of child support and welfare, but even if they work they're less likely to work overtime or even to work full-time. Priority is with the family, not with the job, which will result in less likelihood of promotions. This is pretty much THE reason the '77 cents to a man's dollar' thing exists. Women on average don't work as hard as men, and they're FAR less likely to work dirty/dangerous jobs or to get degrees that would allow them to work the highest-paying jobs. Instead, they usually go for jobs that they are more interested in, oftentimes working with children or other people rather than something in the STEM field. So women don't on-average get paid less than men because of sexism, but because of the choices of women.

I digress yet again however; once that child support ends then she will be receiving FAR less money than she used to, and by then she's likely incapable of having further children. She must struggle with welfare, or work a very low-paying job so she can struggle a little bit less. Meanwhile the father will have likely been working his ass off to support himself as well as pay child support and suddenly finds himself with $1000+ a month in disposable income. So in the end, the father wins, while the mother likely won't even still have the kid since the kid will likely either hate her for the shitty upbringing or be in jail where they will be surrounded by criminals of whom roughly 80% were also raised by a single mother.

I hope this helps, OP. Check out Terrence Popp; he's been run through the wringer by a bitch who got custody of his kids, is getting child support, killed his dog, forced him to sleep in his car for quite some time after the divorce, but he knows he'll win in the end. He's in the US Army as well, has gone through Ranger training, and is just in general a badass. I'm not American, but I hold a lot of respect for that man. He still visits his kids as often as possible even though they're something like 500 miles away.

Nope, you'll have to do the research yourself. That, or just assume everything I said was false. You can find many links on Terrence Popp's vids though, and you can tell I'm not him because my grammar is damn near perfect; he has pretty bad dyslexia which becomes readily apparent in basically all the vids in which he uses a whiteboard.

And you denied his argument by calling it lame and it was a piss poor attempt to sound articulate. Please describe the differences between a car and a plane that cannot fly? I believe that this isn't a fast moving board, so I can wait for your response. If you don't see your error beforehand.

Thanks for the tip. I'm particularly interested in how children raised by gay couples do. A few studies I've read say they do a bit better than children from normal marriages.

>why do we need government to be aware of who we are fucking?

Tax and family law purposes

How the fuck is this literature? Mods do your fucking job.

>hi was kant neurotypical enough to phrase marriage as a gendered contract instead of an agendered categorical?
no, kant was autist.

That's not the argument I made and you know it. He made a fallacy of composition. Just because some planes can't fly, doesn't mean cars and planes in general are the same. Childless marriages are the exception, if there indeed is a procreational purpose to marriage. That's fine if you don't think so, but his argument just doesn't work as a rebuttal to procreation being the primary purpose of a government's interest in marriage. The question is then why love itself is a business of the government.

My personal belief is that it's right to have legal gay marriage because it increases freedom and there's no inherent harm in it.

history is literature and literature is history. dumbfuck

I don't think there's enough gay-couple parental households out there to truly give us a good contrast to straight-couple parental households.

>D-do your own research, I'm not gonna s-spoon feed you
Classic /pol/ hatred of women with not a shred of evidence to back it up.

Detaching sexual behavior from morality is an act of freedom from ideology, not slavery to it.

I'm sure user thinks that infants can give consent and choose what to do with their life. brilliant insight.
retard.

There are legal rights associated with marriage that should clearly not be denied to same sex couples. For example, hospital visitation rights. IF the government doesn't recognize your union you would be denied the ability to visit your partner in the hospital in an emergency or to arbitrate their will incapacitated, etc...

Seems you're not interested in the truth. Go on, prove him wrong.

It would not be an issue (in the US) if various institutions and state governments didn't try to get out of granting rights to civil couples who aren't technically married. The entire point of the supreme court legalizing it was to help people out of those discriminatory loop holes, like this

You didn't understand his point, he wasn't making the fallacy of composition but showing the justification for hetero marriage is inconsistent and when it fails (no children can be produced) , you need another, and this would probably be the same as the non-hetero marriages

>detaching killing Jews from morality is an act of freedom from ideology, not slavery to it

>muh women have babies for child support money
This does not happen, your disconnect from reality is astounding

>someone makes claims
>do your own research lmao and try and disprove me, the burden of proof isn't even a thing

did you take the wrong turn while going to a presuppositionalist board?

user never mentioned consent and his original post is entirely one sided

>the case for equality/justice
In a lot of countries, marriage changes the legal status of partners, for example when it comes to heritage or paying taxes.
So equality/justice is indeed a point for same-sex marriage (imo the one and only but also a sufficient one).

BUT as you said, that juristical status is a historical product and was granted because a marriage was expacted to "produce" children. it's meant for the sake of the children, not for the sake of marriage itself.

Imo, you have to distinguish two things: the religious institution of marriage and the seemingly corresponding juristic one, because they are two different things in reality.

A decision about the approval of same-sex religious marriage can only be made by the representatives of a religion - and the religious sources ("holy" texts) are pretty clear about same-sex marriage at least in Christianity.
The approval of the religious institution of marriage isn't about equality or anything else, it's just about the religion - therefore, homosexuals simply have to accept if a religion approves it or if it doesn't.

The juristical institution of marriage is a different kettle of fish.
First of all, it shouldn't be called the same to extinguish a possible confusion with the religious institution. Call it "official partnership" or whatever (both for homo- and heterosexual couples btw.).
Afterwards, distinguish juristical benefits between the ones that are meant to support possible children (for example tax reliefs) and the ones that are meant to support a partner directly (for example when it comes to inheritance) and adjust the law accordingly. For example, warrant tax reliefs according to the number of children and so on.

I don't really think it's a big problem, politicians simply have to do it, and homosexuals simply have to accept if a religion denies them the religious institution of marriage.

Also I would imagine there would be a level of discrimination against the children in gay marriages which would also factor into the statistics.

I grew out of bringing up hitler in every argument by age 13. What's stalling you?

Don't bother. Even if I went through the bother to bring up the statistics, they're clearly already biased and using buzzwords. 'hatred of women', '/pol/', and simple insults like 'disconnect from reality'. It doesn't matter what I say, their views will not change, and they will only wish to insult us for having opposing views. You can't really expect anything different from the left, so I don't even bother. Give them time. I once had views similar to theirs sadly enough, but I've learned, and I've grown. Give them time.

Discrimination against children in gay marriages? How so?

How so what? I don't understand. A common reason children get teased by not only other children but by adults is by how people see their parents. What's not to understand?

>It's all well and good to show that arguments against same-sex marriage fail, but at the end of the day is the argument in favor of it really as basic as "why not?"
Sure, why not?

>everyone who wants to kill Jews is hitler
Sound like you haven't grown out of it

Firstly, these are two people at least.
Secondly, your
>I am le enlightened right winger and everyone who disagrees with me is an unthinking leftard and they wouldn't believe me even if I posted /pol/ infographic #31 so what's the point
Is incredibly transparent and you should either post some sources or, unironically, do any combination of gb2pol and kys

I've never been compelled by any arguments put forth by gay marriage advocates, and I've been either ambivalent towards or more or less convinced by most of the arguments against it.

>A marriage without children is like a broken plane

You know, maybe examine your own counter arguments before you start calling others shit, that analogy was so far out there I can't even tell how it would relate to the starting debate. That's not how categorization works.

>the religious institution of marriage.
>marriage existed before the major abrahamic religion and goes back as far as the earliest human history
fuck off

DUDE JUST DO WHATEVER YOU WANT LMAO

i think marriage should be gotten rid of. not the ritual but the political aspect of it, fuck the state getting involved. but if it's still around i don't see why gays should be excluded.
the real problem is really why the state is allowed to decide who gets to marry who.

>the real problem is really why the state is allowed to decide who gets to marry who.
Because the state has an interest in promoting stable, monogamous, for-life partnerships that generate offspring. But instead shitlibs are convinced that the purpose of the state is to prevent anyone's feelings being hurt in any way.

>For
Positive liberty
>Against
Negative Liberty, health concerns, declining birth rates, religious concerns as to what constitutes a "marriage"

Marriage to me is a man and a woman dedicating themselves to creating a family. Anything else is just dating LARP'ing as marriage.

Of course the state has an interest, what retarded fuck gives a fuck about the states interest.

>Because the state has an interest in promoting stable, monogamous, for-life partnerships that generate offspring
I love how in the western world, states are just importing populations of people that are religious and have high birth rates and liberals are too stupid to realize that these highly religious immigrant populations aren't fond of homosexuality and that athiests have nowhere near the replacement rate that will sustain their secular worldview in one or two generations time.

That states interest is your interest, moron. People have an interest in maintaining themselves

>marriage existed before the major abrahamic religion
>Actually thinks Judaism was the first religion

>That states interest is your interest
Only if you're a fucking loser.

I don't think such a thing would factor into someone's success; "children raised by gay parents found to statistically perform worse as adults due to childhood homophobic bullying", that just doesn't sound like it would be a problem. Not in the west anyways. In the Middle East however where the concept of same-sex marriage is in no way going to be discussed anytime soon, then you might be onto something, because such openly gay couples would be lucky to see their 10-year anniversary let alone get a chance to raise their children to adulthood.

Anyhow, many people have been bullied as children but became very successful. Look at Steven Crowder; he has his own comedic news show and has something like a dozen people hired who are making good livings by working for him, yet when he was a kid in Canada he was pinned down and repeatedly kicked in the groin. People found it funny, even the teacher didn't make a big deal of it, meanwhile it was the only time he ever cried at school and indeed I don't blame him for crying. See, even white males suffer discrimination, and obviously Asian males do as well yet Asian outperform even whites in almost every way.

I give a fuck about MY state's interest because I want my state to exist and flourish. I don't really care about the abstract idea of a state, I care about my state benefiting my people.

I know. They also don't seem to draw a correlation between the people i.e. race, and the values/society/economics/politics etc. of countries. They truly believe that if the entire population of, say, Japan, or the UK, or Iceland was immediately and instantaneously replaced with middle eastern muslims then nothing would change about those countries.

Are there any legitimate philosophical arguments in support of marriage?

The "state" IS an abstract idea, it's just a bunch of people in a building deciding how to run the country. Do you support anyone who is running the state? No? Then you're doing it out of YOUR own interest.
Nothing wrong with giving a shit about yourself, just stop LARPing like some mega faggot about how you care about "your people".

>it's just a bunch of people in a building deciding how to run the country.
Not the guy you're arguing with, but that's called "government" not "state".

Then define the state for me in terms of things that are tangible.

I think first you have to prove that the state does actually have an interest in the procreation of it's citizenry through marriage. I mean if you want to be logical and shit

I know this might be hard for a deracinated, decultured, devalued, atomised, nihilistic person (who I'm guessing is an atheist, childless and most likely single, though please correct me if I'm wrong) like yourself but I genuinely do care about my people and I want what's best for them.

Not him, but when you get down to the basics, the state is an entity that has the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a certain area/territory. Sure, states do more than just use legitimate force, but that is, in my opinion, the cornerstone of what can be called a state. How so-called "failed states" are defined also feeds into the above argument, as a state is considered failed when it loses the ability to exert its legitimate force within its territory (among other things, of course, but that's mainly it).

So whatever you're voting for/against is decided by utilitarianism?

Well unfortunately there are very few parties that offer totally what I would like (as I'm sure most people feel), so it's a mix of utilitarianism and individualism. However my utilitarian voting is for my in-group, so there's a rather unsurprising amount of overlap.

Nice autistic ad homs thanks for proving my point about you being a mega faggot.
So the military is the state?

...

When did you decide that being willfully stupid online was a good way to spend your life?

Actually they aren't ad homs, they're educated guesses of genuine descriptive factors.

Since you cannot maintain a functioning state without a military (which doesn't necessarily have to be yours), I'd say yes. In most countries, with the head of state also being the commander-in-chief makes the military (and, by extension, police forces) a tool utilized by the government to enforce its will. Granted, the military can, quite literally, become the state, given enough power and ambition on the side of the leadership. There have been plenty of coups to attest to that. After all, running an entity whose cornerstone is legitimized violence is risky business.

You're definitely a homosexual.

>two complete non-arguments in a row

>Dude it's so counter culture to do noting but do drugs and fuck
>Even though it's enforced by consumerist corporations working with the state
Topkek. Guess you aren't bug brained enough nigga to know about Big Pharma and neoliberalism.

If you don't want to maintain your own people then not only are you lame, you are the definition of a subverted counter culture that is nothing but the status quo.

Just curious, were you raised by a single mother? Because this is some of the most ignorant shit I've ever read.

Yeah the military is important, it's not the "state" though. Sure there are military-run states but most of the world's states are run by governments who the military are subordinate to.
Either way, military or government, my point about the state being an abstraction still stands.

>Dude it's so counter culture to do noting but do drugs and fuck
No it's not. It's also obvious that you can't get access to either.
>Drugs and fucking are enforced by consumerist corporations working with the state
LMAO this is gold.

Honestly, "state" is really hard to define since the term is used ambiguosly.
On a very basic level (Plato) you might define the state as the entirety of a society plus the structur of said society (which includes all the institutions it established: government, police, military, jurisdication, but also economic system, health care system and so on).

There are a lot of questions to the definition of the term "state", nowadays, since it changed so much (for example: how is state territory defined by the real property of it's citizens and institutions, since you can own real estate in another state, nowadays? Which society is able to form a state, how have it's members to be related; is a business company for example able to form a state on it's own like Microsoftia or Apple-Country? Can a state be a state on its own or does it have to be recognised by other states?

Questions aside: I think, the main point here is that every citizen is part of the state; therefore, there is no opposition between a citizen and his state, which is made up oftentimes, today. You may oppose certain institutions or how stuff is handled, but there's no "citizen-state-dichotomy".

Life becomes a lot more fun when you realize that the irreparably dumb aren't worth engaging substantively.

>No it's not. It's also obvious that you can't get access to either.
>LMAO this is gold
>This lame ass nigga has never done oxy, xanny, or addy
>Doesn't even know that most people get hooked on heroin after doing oxy (another opioid)
>Has no idea that neoliberal immigration policies destroy native culture with mass consumerism from big corporations dominating local economies and through mass immigration that drives down wages and increases consumption by decreasing the CPI

*"it's" -> "its", of course (pretty often)

*tips fedora*

Because those are the only drugs you can use recreationally.
Also grats on faking (probably not even) mental illness to get drugs. You're just proving my point about you being a total loser.

I wonder if you even knew what CPI was before I told you just now. Probably not, because you are most likely just some lumpenprol who likes to read and doesn't care for politics beyond what talking heads on tv tell him to believe in.

Either that or his wife left him and took the kids. It's pretty clear he has some serious mommy issues.

Exactly, the state is an abstraction. It's made up of individuals who take part in it and that's all that matters.

>Because those are the only drugs you can use recreationally.
Those are the majority of drugs people use recreationally, yes. Pill pushing is a huge problem here in the states and the majority of addiction cases come from pain killers like oxy and other pills
>Implying you need to fake mental illness to get a prescription
Nigger you can just find some pharmacist who doesn't give a shit just sell them to you.

Not him but
>Everyone who thinks that single motherhood is destructive is a emasculated and just compensating with misogyny
>T. Armchair pscyhoanalyst
Why do liberals do this every time, yet sperg the fuck out when conservatives accuse them of having daddy issues?

>Negative Liberty
Two people getting married isn't an imposition on anyone else.
>health concerns
Because a married person is much more likely to spread STDs than a bachelor.
>declining birth rates
People who would have children if and only if they couldn't have a gay marriage are a negligible portion of the population.
>religious concerns as to what constitutes a "marriage"
God doesn't real.

>Those are the majority of drugs people use recreationally
addictioncenter.com/addiction/10-most-common-addictions/ - took me 5 seconds
Also, nobody is fucking on painkillers you retarded virgin.

I've not been raised by a single mom.

I've never been married let alone divorced, and I don't have kids that I know of.

I don't see how what I said was ignorant; it reflects the real world. There's a big problem with single motherhood especially in the black community (around 20% of black kids without a dad back in the 60s or so, now in excess of 70% today, in large part thanks to no-fault divorce, bias for women in divorce court, welfare state, 2nd wave feminism as well as the modern 'gangsta' culture that sees fit to promote gang violence and disrespect to women), and roughly 80% in US prisons right now were raised by single moms. Single mothers, statistics suggest, do not make good parents. A quick Google search got me the following information, with souces...

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all Gods Children.)
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)