There is a difference between emotional reasoning which is flawed reasoning and recognising that emotional wellbeing is a thing that actually exists and that allowing people to do things which make them happy and don't hurt anyone else is positive in society.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You can support civil partnerships, which have the same legal standing, and still want "marriage" to be the term which describes a male/female institution.
-
Yes, or I can support marriage for same sex couples because I see no reason it should be a male/female institution.
-
Sure. But there is a fair amount of biology and tradition behind the word "marriage".
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Rational reasons: A) equality. B) public interest. A married couple lives longer, takes care of each other. C) better for potential children
-
D) Legal lines. Who decides medical care when other unable? Property rights. Etc. E) Divorce. Legal precedent set for custody/asset division
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This myth that emotions and rationality are two separate things really has to disappear. Every decision we make, whatever rational it is, it has an emotion behind. Without emotions there's no rationality. Lakoff explains it really well here:http://library.fora.tv/2008/06/20/George_Lakoff_on_The_Political_Mind …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Love is pretty much the fucking epitome of "emotional." Rationality has zero influence on being attracted to another person
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Procreation is the "rational" argument. Which of course ignores couples who choose not to have children. I'm with you. I don't get to decide who someone else gets to marry. I think that's both emotional and rational.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As if it’s not possible to reason about our emotions
. This idea that emotions should be excluded from rational conversations is ridiculous on its face.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I married my GF of 16 years 2 years ago so she would be my next of kin. Most things are in my name, so she's protected if something happens to me. Also, because of emotional reasons.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Would same sex couples still collectively fight for marriage as much if it was only recognized by the cultural institution that provided it without any additional recognition from the State?
-
Yes, I would.
-
Well, as others have pointed out, that's probably the only rational reason. If it's not needed, then there's Helen's answer.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The rational reason is the creation of a stable, secure reproductive environment in which offspring produced have the greatest possible chance of growing to maturity, leaving the nest, and continuing the propagation cycle.
-
Reproduction is not a requirement of marriage. Having kids is not compulsory. Getting married and having kids is not dependent on each other.
-
No, but it is the primary biological function behind our notions of romance, sexuality, and so on... and from a purely rational point of view, it serves the purpose of 'survival of the species'.
-
That's not to say this is all it entail, or even that this is what it SHOULD be used for... the question was posed as to 'what the purely rational reason' would be. So I present Marriage as the natural human 'evolution' of species which mate for life, and the rationale behind it.
-
Marriage is the legal legal recognition of a specific relationship between two people. It has never been about children.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, and...equal protection under the law.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.