The reasons for opposing gay marriage

But the fact that you have chosen to put it into "basic terms" has oversimplified the argument. We already know that more expensive things aren't necessarily inferior to less expensive things, because people might actually want to pay more money, because the like the expensive thing more than the less expensive thing.

chefdave's point is that more expensive things are inferior to less expensive things in situations where you would prefer to take the less expensive option, but you are unable to.

Yeah, and both this should be fixed and the same should be changed.

Fine, but I propose a compromise. Seeing as how straight people keep saying it doesn't make a difference and gay people want their union to be called marriage, we call the straight one 'civil partnership' and the gay one 'marriage'. Why not?

Sorry, I don't really understand this sentence. What do you mean?

I don't see anything wrong with the terminology being that way round. But I consider it a strange idea, simply because changes in language aren't something you can implement just by flicking a switch. They evolve and develop over time to the way that they are.

For example, suppose I have a wife. And someone comes along and asks me "Are you married?". Now according to these new definitions, I am not, I am in a civil partnership. So I would have to say "no, I'm in a civil partnership". But then they would likely misunderstand me, and think I am gay. Because it is the straight union which has been called "marriage" for hundreds of years, and has become conventional in ordinary social usage.

I'd say it's a financial disadvantage to have to take the more expensive route to have kids. But gay people don't all want kids, they don't have to have IVF/a surrogate/medical sperm donation if they do want kids, and it doesn't make gay people inferior because they have one potential financial disadvantage.

Well sure, perhaps you don't like the word "inferior" - but again, it's just semantics. The actual material point of the argument is simply to point out the existence of certain disadvantages such as this one.

Not inane, curious.

That was a statement from me not an accusation. HIV (not aids btw) is more prevalent within the gay community.

I thought you were speaking either metaphorically of a "cost" of being gay (the hightened chance of an illness such as HIV) or you were speaking of a physical "financial cost" of being gay - if you opted for IVF in order to have a baby. I was genuinely curious, chill, it's a Friday

I totally agree with this. I don't find the concept disgusting though as they don't really choose to be gay and it's like a norm that I see everyday. But yeah I do think its supposed to be men and women. Its just the tradition in me. If being gay was natural then they would be able to have children naturally.

Both fix the inequalities so that they are made totally equal in terms of rights, and also change the name. Both are worth fighting for.

If it was made clear that the gay union would be called marriage and the straight union a civil partnership, then there wouldn't be any confusion.

Another concern I just remembered when you said that - with them being called different things, when you declare your marital status you are also forced to declare your sexual orientation - which people often have no need to know and can lead to discrimination.

Gay people have a potential disadvantage in that should they choose to have children it may cost them money. Straight people have a disadvantage in that they can have contraceptive failures that lead to unwanted pregnancies.
There are disadvantages and advantages to both, therefore you can't say that one is inferior to the other by virtue of one potential disadvantage.

It's not natural! Nature has designed a male and a female to be together, hence only a man and a woman can have children. Not men and men or women and women. Sorry gay people but I find this whole concept rather disgusting. However I know some really friendly gay men, they are really nice people, but I just can't seem to understand why they choose a man instead of a woman to be with *shivers*

No, I'm not saying one is inferior to the other by virtue of one potential disadvantage. I think that it may be different amongst different people - but that the one which is inferior is the one which carries the set of disadvantages, potential disadvantages, risks etc. that you are less willing to accept.

The potential risks and disadvantages are different between same-sex and mixed-sex relationships, it's true, but they're also largely to do with external factors. The cost of an IVF cycle, the risk of HIV exposure, etc are largely determined by your environment (the market in the case of IVF).

Inferior implies, to my mind, something about the intrinsic quality of things. Being subject to disadvantage does not make something inferior.

Why is is you get to pick and choose? Does the bible not condon rape, slavery and lots of other things?

To my mind, it doesn't imply anything intrinsic. Like how the boss of a company is "superior" to his employees. He may not be intrinsically better than them in any way. The circumstances are simply such that he is in a position with some advantage over them.

The average age of the people in the above picture don't look like they'll be on the planet for another 10 years, let alone 40.

You're absolutely right that it's not homophobic to point out the costs of IVF; there is a similar debate to be had whether gay couples should get IVF treatment on the NHS or not.

Personally I don't think so, because IVF should be reserved (and paid for by the state) for those couples who biologically cannot have children (through blocked ovaries etc). Whereas a healthy gay individual could have sex with a member of the opposite sex (a close friend or something) in order to have a baby.

If they were to have sex with a member of the opposite sex then of course this still leaves one of the homosexual parents out of the biological loop so to speak.

However this moral conundrum wouldn't be solved either by IVF, as one of the homosexual parents would be left out of this procedure as well. (Only one of the homosexual male parents would need to donate their sperm, and equally only one of a homosexual female couple would need to bear a child to labour, meaning that in both situations their partners are not biologically involved in the making of the child.)

No, I'm not saying one is inferior to the other by virtue of one potential disadvantage. I think that it may be different amongst different people - but that the one which is inferior from any person's point of view is the one which carries the set of disadvantages, potential disadvantages, risks and other undesirable associations that they are less willing to accept.

The bible says a lot of things. For instance you aren't supposed to wear two different types of cloth, but I presume you have worn denim jeans and a t-shirt, at least when double denim wasn't a trend

Why is is you get to pick and choose? Does the bible not condon rape, slavery and lots of other things?

What about single parent families, or those that lose a mother or father? Do you condem those families too?

There are plenty of single parents, though, who manage to give a role model for the sex of the missing parent. If your cousins don't receive a male influence due to having no father, then that's their mothers' faults; not everybody gets male influence, thank goodness, from their fathers.

In terms of what the Bible says, I would suggest that it was written without the knowledge we now have regarding homosexuality. We have to move on from 1st-Century Palestine (or even earlier) and come to the conclusion that everybody can love, everybody should have equal rights, and that it is an insult to the homosexual community to alienate them based on a corrupt and biased text.