10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

[r0beph]

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

[PLC1]

Excellent post.

My first reaction, on reading the title: :rolleyes:

My next reaction, on reading the first couple of lines: ROFL

My final reaction: You nailed it.

[Bunz]

Excellent OP. Quite amusing and telling, effectively showing the hypocrisy of the entire argument against what really is a civil rights issue in my eyes.

[Segep]

LOL

I came into this thread with my hackles raised and teeth bared. I didn't really read the OP, but I was surprised that PLC1 and Bunz were in agreement, so I read it. :D

Nice job!

[r0beph]

LOL

I came into this thread with my hackles raised and teeth bared. I didn't really read the OP, but I was surprised that PLC1 and Bunz were in agreement, so I read it. :D

Nice job!

I'll never understand why people don't read the OPs... of course, I'm sure thats why a lot of threads get jacked into talking about hockey instead of whatever was the initial rail of the thread...

But yeah, I found this to display a favorable, but undeniable, irony in reference to gay marriage ideals in this country.

[Segep]

I'll never understand why people don't read the OPs

Well, I thought I knew all I needed to know based on the thread title. I knew reading it would just piss me off more. :p

Shows ya what I know.

[r0beph]

Does no one wish to argue this? where are all those who support the anti homosexual rhetoric to defend these truths!

[AlicornsPrayer]

Does no one wish to argue this? where are all those who support the anti homosexual rhetoric to defend these truths!

Sorry to disappoint...But I'm all for SSM too so you won't get an argument against it from me either. :cool:

Love that post...I love seeing it everywhere I go. :D

[USMC the Almighty]

To be honest, not many people I know care about gay marriage. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. Leave it up to the states.

[ilikeboobs]

To be honest, not many people I know care about gay marriage. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. Leave it up to the states.

I'm against gay marriage, but I agree that it's a state's rights issue, not something for the feds to decide. See the 10th amendment for more details...

I'll bite on some of these, though, for the sake of discussion:

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. Last time I checked eyeglasses, polyester and air conditioning improved people's quality of life. Being gay doesn't help me see better, make me look good, or cool me down in the summer.


2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. Being tall is not a behavior that can be changed. Being gay is a behavior that can be changed. I know two people (one good friend and an aquaintence) who have gone from straight to gay just because it's easier to get sex. And they didn't get taller...


3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. A dog, perhaps not. But why not polygamy? Why are they less important than gays? And why not let someone marry themself? They might love themself so much, and they shouldn't be denied the all the rights of married people. That would be discrimination...shame shame.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. All of those things were changed by society. If society wants to make gay marriage legal, so be it. But last I checked 13 states have banned it. So good luck...

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed. Doesn't make straight marriage any less meaningful. Just makes gay marriage a sham.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children. Irrelevant. You don't get married for the sole purpose of making children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. But those children would be more susceptable to being gay being that they're exposed to that BEHAVIOR all day long.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America. That's right - most religions are against it. And while we don't live in a theocracy, many of our laws are based on the Judeo-Christian principles of the Bible. Sorry.


9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. Children CAN succeed in a single family home, but studies show that having a male AND female role model at home significantly improves a child's chances of success in life.


10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans. Again, you're comparing non-behaviors to a behavior. Doesn't work.

[Segep]

I'm against gay marriage, but I agree that it's a state's rights issue, not something for the feds to decide. See the 10th amendment for more details...

I'll bite on some of these, though, for the sake of discussion:

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. Last time I checked eyeglasses, polyester and air conditioning improved people's quality of life. Being gay doesn't help me see better, make me look good, or cool me down in the summer.

You're doing it wrong. It looks good on me. :D


2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. Being tall is not a behavior that can be changed. Being gay is a behavior that can be changed. I know two people (one good friend and an aquaintence) who have gone from straight to gay just because it's easier to get sex. And they didn't get taller...

Yeah, that's happens a lot in prison, I hear. ;)


3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. A dog, perhaps not. But why not polygamy? Why are they less important than gays? And why not let someone marry themself? They might love themself so much, and they shouldn't be denied the all the rights of married people. That would be discrimination...shame shame.

Indeed. Why not polygamy? But that is a topic for another thread.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. All of those things were changed by society. If society wants to make gay marriage legal, so be it. But last I checked 13 states have banned it. So good luck...

Thank you. I have no doubt it will happen in my lifetime. That is, if we don't convert to full facism within the next few years.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed. Doesn't make straight marriage any less meaningful. Just makes gay marriage a sham.

I've been married to my partner for almost 5 years now. You tell me which marriage was more meaningful WRT showing commitment. Britney's or mine.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children. Irrelevant. You don't get married for the sole purpose of making children.

So obviously that is a retarded argument to use against gay marriage, no?

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. But those children would be more susceptable to being gay being that they're exposed to that BEHAVIOR all day long.

Of course, because I always have gay buttsex in front of my children :rolleyes: I got news for ya. Gay people live normal lives, visit neighbors, have normal parties, watch television, grow old and get fat like everyone else. But don't spread that around too much. We've got reputations to uphold.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America. That's right - most religions are against it. And while we don't live in a theocracy, many of our laws are based on the Judeo-Christian principles of the Bible. Sorry.

You need to study law a little more.


9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. Children CAN succeed in a single family home, but studies show that having a male AND female role model at home significantly improves a child's chances of success in life.

TWO parents are better than one. Period.


0. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans. Again, you're comparing non-behaviors to a behavior. Doesn't work.

And, you're assuming that driving a car, working in a coffee shop, and playing golf when you're 70 aren't behaviors.

[PLC1]

Already, we are on the slippery slope toward the end of traditional marriage. Ever since Loving v. Virginia (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18090277/), the country has been going downhill. First, we accepted exogynous marriages. Now, homosexual marriages. Next, we'll see polygamous marriages, polyamorous marriages, interspecial marriages, and autoerotic marriages, all because of a court case forty years ago.

Disclaimer and warning: Those who are sarcasmically challenged are advised to discuss this post with someone who is not before replying.

[vyo476]

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. Last time I checked eyeglasses, polyester and air conditioning improved people's quality of life. Being gay doesn't help me see better, make me look good, or cool me down in the summer.

Being truthful about one's sexual orientation and being allowed to fully express that truth improves quality of life.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. Being tall is not a behavior that can be changed. Being gay is a behavior that can be changed. I know two people (one good friend and an aquaintence) who have gone from straight to gay just because it's easier to get sex. And they didn't get taller...

Homosexuality is both a pattern of behavior and an orientation. Behavior can be changed, you're right; orientation cannot.

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice? No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/pdf.php?id=31

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. A dog, perhaps not. But why not polygamy? Why are they less important than gays? And why not let someone marry themself? They might love themself so much, and they shouldn't be denied the all the rights of married people. That would be discrimination...shame shame.

Why not polygamy? How does that hurt you? What does that even have to do with you, period?

Why not let a person marry him- or herself? The rights of married people (most of them, anyway, from what I remember) have to do with shared rights - visitation at hospitals, division of estate upon death, etc. What adverse consequences of letting a person marry himself are there?

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. All of those things were changed by society. If society wants to make gay marriage legal, so be it. But last I checked 13 states have banned it. So good luck...

Societies change, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly. We'll see.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed. Doesn't make straight marriage any less meaningful. Just makes gay marriage a sham.

Care to explain this, in context?

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children. Irrelevant. You don't get married for the sole purpose of making children.

It might not be the sole purpose, but can you think of any other reason the government has any business licensing and regulating interpersonal relationships than the creation of family units, which are proven to reduce instances of criminal behavior in children?

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. But those children would be more susceptable to being gay being that they're exposed to that BEHAVIOR all day long.

I realize you're just responding to the point in green, but both that point and yours kind of make me think, "so what?"

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America. That's right - most religions are against it. And while we don't live in a theocracy, many of our laws are based on the Judeo-Christian principles of the Bible. Sorry.

More than just our laws; the norms and values of our society, from a macrosociological point of view, are based firmly on Judeo-Christian traditions (basically, all those prevailing "moral" attitudes that classify us as "the West"). However, it's important to note that the laws and our norms and values are all malleable; in this way, religious values may go in one direction and societal values may go in another, and laws are necessarily contingent upon societal values in this our secular world.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. Children CAN succeed in a single family home, but studies show that having a male AND female role model at home significantly improves a child's chances of success in life.

In terms of general family models, two parents are better than one - both theoretically and in practice. Studies have shown that children raised in dual-parent households engage in criminal or otherwise sociopathic behavior less often than children raised in single-parent households.

That's not to say anything bad about single parents - most of the single parents I've known personally have been extremely dedicated to their children - but it is also an undeniable fact.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans. Again, you're comparing non-behaviors to a behavior. Doesn't work.

How about acknowledgement that blacks are human beings and not inherently less intelligent than whites? All kinds of behavior have become more acceptable as a result of that sort of thing - interracial relationships, black workers being higher in the corporate pecking order than white workers, etc. That latter one still isn't common, maybe, but it's possible today, whereas the very suggestion of it one hundred fifty years ago would have been laughed at.

Look at how the Industrial Revolution altered the "foundation of society" - America went from being a collection of mostly gemeinschaft miniature socieities to groups of larger gesellschaft societies, which is what introduced the idea of social activism over personal or demagogic rebellion - the formation of special-interest groups like unions, temperance leagues, religious subsidiary groups, business assocations, all those little groups of like-minded people that are part of the great society of America but identify with each other on grounds that outsiders that are still Americans can't relate to.

[ilikeboobs]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1337175820080114?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

On a semi-related topic, there's something new out there now trying to kill gays. Don't get mad at me, I'm just the reporter.

[bewitched]

polygamy needs to be redefined to include affairs ... over 50% of Americans practice it.

love this thread. well done.

[bewitched]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1337175820080114?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

On a semi-related topic, there's something new out there now trying to kill gays. Don't get mad at me, I'm just the reporter.

yes indeed.
there are many risky diseases when anal cavities are involved. many of these also include illegal drug use which complicates the immune system. this is why there are certain practices when handling bodies and bodily fluids regulated by health departments.
but there are also epidemics that are from mosquitos, and bird, but since they aren't gay I guess those are ok.

[ilikeboobs]

...there are also epidemics that are from mosquitos, and bird, but since they aren't gay I guess those are ok.

:D
that's good stuff!

[PLC1]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1337175820080114?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

On a semi-related topic, there's something new out there now trying to kill gays. Don't get mad at me, I'm just the reporter.

Yes, yet another reason to encourage long term monogamous relationships among gays, and discourage promiscuity.

Promiscuity among straights has a lot of disease risks also.

[ilikeboobs]

I'm just curious - is there anyone here (other than me) who is against gay marriage for one reason or another, or is this site frequented by gay-rights supporters only? I'm not knocking you either way, I'd just like to know if there are ever any opposing view points to this issue here.

[9sublime]

I still want to know why anyone could possibly oppose gay marriage on any reasonable grounds seeing as it doesnt affect you wether its legal or illegal unless you choose to get married to a man.

[ilikeboobs]

I still want to know why anyone could possibly oppose gay marriage on any reasonable grounds seeing as it doesnt affect you wether its legal or illegal unless you choose to get married to a man.

Why does it have to affect someone (i.e. "does it affect your marriage?" argument) in order for it to be found morally/naturally wrong? Can't a society simply make its own norms? In Europe people might love gay marriage. In the Middle East it's considered something akin to the devil. In the US it seems to be (I'm just guessing) 70/30 in favor of traditional marriage. It doesn't have to affect me personally, and honestly it wouldn't affect me personally. But NAMBLA doesn't affect me personally, nor do people who have sex with animals.

Once again, I say leave it up to the states to decide.

[PLC1]

Why does it have to affect someone (i.e. "does it affect your marriage?" argument) in order for it to be found morally/naturally wrong? Can't a society simply make its own norms? In Europe people might love gay marriage. In the Middle East it's considered something akin to the devil. In the US it seems to be (I'm just guessing) 70/30 in favor of traditional marriage. It doesn't have to affect me personally, and honestly it wouldn't affect me personally. But NAMBLA doesn't affect me personally, nor do people who have sex with animals.

Once again, I say leave it up to the states to decide.

NAMBLA doesn't affect me personally, but it might have a negative impact on my grandsons.
The KKK doesn't affect me personally, but I still find their philosophy offensive, because it does impact others negatively.
Communism doesn't affect me personally, but I still don't like to see it spread.

I think the difference is choice. No one is being forced into a gay marriage. NAMBLA is simply a way for perverts to force their perversion on boys not yet able to make a rational choice. No one chooses to have the KKK burn a cross on their lawn.
Nothing is more anti choice than Communism.

My philosophy is live and let live. If there is no negative impact to two gays deciding to live as a family, why should it matter to me? Why would I want the government to make that choice? I think that the fewer choices we leave up to the government, the better.

[Segep]

I'm just curious - is there anyone here (other than me) who is against gay marriage for one reason or another, or is this site frequented by gay-rights supporters only? I'm not knocking you either way, I'd just like to know if there are ever any opposing view points to this issue here.

LOL look around the site some and you'll find a few people on your side. :)

[PLC1]

I'm just curious - is there anyone here (other than me) who is against gay marriage for one reason or another, or is this site frequented by gay-rights supporters only? I'm not knocking you either way, I'd just like to know if there are ever any opposing view points to this issue here.

I don't see any posts on this thread to suggest anyone else shared your view. Here is someone on another forum who does (http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1106705&postcount=3).

[jb_1430]

I think government should have a valid reason for licensing and regulating human relationships. Helping gays to feel better about themselves is not a valid reason.

[r0beph]

I think government should have a valid reason for licensing and regulating human relationships. Helping gays to feel better about themselves is not a valid reason.

And helping you cope with something that is different by denying its legitimacy is valid? indeed.

In fact let me quote one of the most famous documents of this very country's existence....in fact the very document that MADE this country.....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Pursuit of happiness.....now let me consider that "To feel better about themselves" is thus a synonym for their pursuit of their personal happiness and you have validity for allowing it. These words although lacking it directly, obviously intend that people should be allowed to pursue such happiness as long as this pursuit is not inconsistent with the equal rights of others. One could directly take this as to say that by allowing men and women to marry and to disallow men and men or women and women to marry, by reason that this may (and I say this with no small incredulous smirk on my face at the idea that this holds any water as a reason) undermine the sanctity of marriage, you are stepping on the equal rights of these who wish to marry one of the same sex, and thus neither should men and women be allowed to marry. But of course this is as ridiculous an idea as the idea that gays should not be allowed to marry, and I only stated it to make my point. If you consider yourself an American, then you by the very foundation on which this country was created, even before the oft quoted constitution, must allow gay marriage...

[jb_1430]

Pursuit of happiness.....now let me consider that "To feel better about themselves" is thus a synonym for their pursuit of their personal happiness and you have validity for allowing it. These words although lacking it directly, obviously intend that people should be allowed to pursue such happiness as long as this pursuit is not inconsistent with the equal rights of others.


I sometimes find happiness abusing myself with my left hand. I am free to do so. Government licensing and regulation isnt required. The government would have no valid reason to do so.
Sad state of affairs when you need the endorsement of government to find your happiness and feel better about yourself.

[9sublime]

Nobody is stopping you from bashing one out because its not regulated, but people are stopping the gays from getting married because it is unregulated. Can you see the difference?

[jb_1430]

Nobody is stopping you from bashing one out because its not regulated, but people are stopping the gays from getting married because it is unregulated. Can you see the difference?

Oooh what nonsense. No one is being stopped from getting married. Even here in conservative central Tx we have a couple churches that perform gay marriages on a regular basis.

[9sublime]

Well then whats the problem? Gay marriage is going ahead and not affecting you, and you can still bash one out over women.

[Segep]

I sometimes find happiness abusing myself with my left hand. I am free to do so. Government licensing and regulation isnt required. The government would have no valid reason to do so.
Sad state of affairs when you need the endorsement of government to find your happiness and feel better about yourself.

Your argument only makes sense if your left hand can take on the role of a stepparent and raise a child, and if your left hand faced discrimination on a daily basis. This isn't about "feeling better about myself". I feel great. It's about my family being valid, recognized, and given the same protections my heterosexual neighbors have. It's about my children being given the same opportunities as your children. Unless you can sit there with a straight face and prove your kids are more worthy than mine, your argument falls apart.

[jb_1430]

Your argument only makes sense if your left hand can take on the role of a stepparent and raise a child, and if your left hand faced discrimination on a daily basis.

I dont have any kids. I know a 35 yr old widow of 10 years who had her Father move into her house 9 years ago to help take care of the three kids.
Are you going to argue that somehow your relationship is more worthy of government endorsement because one of you is sticking yer dick in the other, and my friends father is not?

[Segep]

I dont have any kids. I know a 35 yr old widow of 10 years who had her Father move into her house 9 years ago to help take care of the three kids.
Are you going to argue that somehow your relationship is more worthy of government endorsement because one of you is sticking yer dick in the other, and my friends father is not?

Your crudeness aside, yes, that is what I am arguing. Her father is in no danger of losing the kids should she die, nor would he have a problem visiting her in the hospital or managing her affairs.

[ilikeboobs]

I dont have any kids. I know a 35 yr old widow of 10 years who had her Father move into her house 9 years ago to help take care of the three kids.


Is she hot? :o

[jb_1430]

Your crudeness aside, yes, that is what I am arguing. Her father is in no danger of losing the kids should she die, nor would he have a problem visiting her in the hospital or managing her affairs.

Oooohhh so pretend she is a a divorcee. If she dies her ex would get the kids. Just as if you died, your ex would get yours. Same treatment for people in the same situation. (If I recall your divorced, living with your "partner"... or am I confusing you with another dog avatar?). Your issues are with adoption laws and hospital visitation policy, not marriage law.

[Segep]

Oooohhh so pretend she is a a divorcee. If she dies her ex would get the kids. Just as if you died, your ex would get yours.

What if I don't want my ex getting the kid? What if my kid wants to stay with my partner? What if my kid considers us a family even if you don't? Don't his feelings matter at all?

Same treatment for people in the same situation. (If I recall your divorced, living with your "partner"... or am I confusing you with another dog avatar?). Your issues are with adoption laws and hospital visitation policy, not marriage law.

No, it's me...as you no doubt have realized by now since we both post at another forum where I've recently changed my name to Segep. :D

[jb_1430]

What if I don't want my ex getting the kid? What if my kid wants to stay with my partner? What if my kid considers us a family even if you don't? Don't his feelings matter at all?

No, it's me...as you no doubt have realized by now since we both post at another forum where I've recently changed my name to Segep. :D

If you were married to your partner, your ex would still get custody. Just as when a parent dies, the step parent doesnt get the children, the other surviving biological parent gets custody. All these issues you bring up have nothing to do with marriage. It seems now you also want to remove from the law the preference for the parental rights of biologiocal parents over non biological parents. Them damned breeders get all the breaks.

[numinus]

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

This is the third time I have seen the above nonsense in different fora. It amazes me that people go to such trouble trying to convince themselves of the merits of an absurd proposition.

A man is a man and a woman a woman and a marriage the union of a man and a woman. Nothing difficult to understand at all.

[PLC1]

This is the third time I have seen the above nonsense in different fora. It amazes me that people go to such trouble trying to convince themselves of the merits of an absurd proposition.

A man is a man and a woman a woman and a marriage the union of a man and a woman. Nothing difficult to understand at all.

You recognize that it's nonsense, yet still recite the mantra? That doesn't make sense. Of course, it's nonsense. That's why there is no argument against allowing gay marriages.

[numinus]

You recognize that it's nonsense, yet still recite the mantra? That doesn't make sense. Of course, it's nonsense. That's why there is no argument against allowing gay marriages.

There are tons of rational arguments - nothing resembling the ones in the thread starter. It is nothing but a bunch of strawman arguments that doesn't even try to hide the fact.

[PLC1]

There are tons of rational arguments

And those would be??

[numinus]

And those would be??

Marriage establishes a juridical entity in accordance with a WOMAN'S RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD and is the basis of ALL FAMILY RELATIONS.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with what you imagine it to be.

[PLC1]

Marriage establishes a juridical entity in accordance with a WOMAN'S RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD and is the basis of ALL FAMILY RELATIONS.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with what you imagine it to be.

And all family relations must, of course, exclude homosexuals. It is much better for society if gays have to go and find sex on the street somewhere than settle down with another gay and form a family.

A woman's right to motherhood? Where did that one come from? I don't remember seeing anything in the Constitution about that. Did I miss something?

What do I imagine it to be? I had no idea you were a mind reader.

[numinus]

And all family relations must, of course, exclude homosexuals. It is much better for society if gays have to go and find sex on the street somewhere than settle down with another gay and form a family.

Of course not. Homosexuals have biological parents too, no? That is what's its all about - the natural fecundity of the human species.

A woman's right to motherhood? Where did that one come from? I don't remember seeing anything in the Constitution about that. Did I miss something?

What do I imagine it to be? I had no idea you were a mind reader.

You certainly did miss something.

Motherhood is defined in the universal declaration of human rights, the us being a signatory to this document.

One need not be a mind-reader to discern that your idea of marriage does not conform with the principles for which it was meant to be.

[PLC1]

Of course not. Homosexuals have biological parents too, no? That is what's its all about - the natural fecundity of the human species.

Of course, the gays could have a family life by continuing to live with their biological parents for their entire lives. I'm not so sure that is what the gays would want, or their parents, or anyone else, but that is a solution.



You certainly did miss something.

Motherhood is defined in the universal declaration of human rights, the us being a signatory to this document.

One need not be a mind-reader to discern that your idea of marriage does not conform with the principles for which it was meant to be.

Does that mean that lesbians also have a right to motherhood? Are you arguing that lesbian couples should have a right to adopt, or to have children by artificial insemination? If that is the case, wouldn't it be better for the children if their mothers were married, rather than just living together?

Marriage from a strictly legal point of view gives the couple some basic rights that people just living together don't have. Gays could simply have a ceremony and declare themselves married, with no government sanction at all. Can you see why they wouldn't choose that option?

[numinus]

Of course, the gays could have a family life by continuing to live with their biological parents for their entire lives. I'm not so sure that is what the gays would want, or their parents, or anyone else, but that is a solution.

What are you talking about????

The fundamental family relation is between a mother and her child and is extended by marriage.

Do you really think family relations come from mere cohabitation???

Does that mean that lesbians also have a right to motherhood?

Yes. They have a right to exercise their NATURAL FECUNDITY.

Are you arguing that lesbian couples should have a right to adopt,

No one has a right to adopt. Adoption is governed by the rights of children as determined by the state.

or to have children by artificial insemination?

Correct. Artificial insemination is an exercise of a woman's natural fecundity, hence covered by the right to motherhood.

If that is the case, wouldn't it be better for the children if their mothers were married, rather than just living together?

It is the RIGHT OF THE CHILD to grow up in the environment of his/her NUCLEAR FAMILY. That is one of the purpose of marriage. How does it help if you allow a lesbian mother to marry her lover, hmmm?

Marriage from a strictly legal point of view gives the couple some basic rights that people just living together don't have.

Correct. All these rights accrue from the right of motherhood, the rights of children, and family relations.

Gays could simply have a ceremony and declare themselves married, with no government sanction at all.

They can do so if they wish. That has NOTHING to do with the right of motherhood hence has NOTHING to do with marriage.

Can you see why they wouldn't choose that option?

Can you?

[PLC1]

What are you talking about????

I'm referring to this statement, of course:

Of course not. Homosexuals have biological parents too, no?

The fundamental family relation is between a mother and her child and is extended by marriage.

Do you really think family relations come from mere cohabitation???

No, of course not. That's why a homosexual couple should be encouraged to marry, just as a heterosexual one should be encouraged to do the same.

Yes. They have a right to exercise their NATURAL FECUNDITY.



No one has a right to adopt. Adoption is governed by the rights of children as determined by the state.



Correct. Artificial insemination is an exercise of a woman's natural fecundity, hence covered by the right to motherhood.

Good. I see we agree here. No, no one has the right to adopt. Adoption should be encouraged, of course, as a better alternative to abortion, but adoptive parents need to be chosen carefully.

And yes, every woman, whether gay or straight, should have the right to exercise here natural fecundity, whether in the usual way, or through a medical procedure. I'd even extend that to women whose fecundity, as you put it, is compromised. En vitrio fertilization has come a long way.

It is the RIGHT OF THE CHILD to grow up in the environment of his/her NUCLEAR FAMILY. That is one of the purpose of marriage. How does it help if you allow a lesbian mother to marry her lover, hmmm?

The same way it helps the straight mother when she is married to her straight lover, of course. That's what it's all about, isn't it, marriage in order to establish a nuclear family?

Correct. All these rights accrue from the right of motherhood, the rights of children, and family relations.

They do? I wasn't aware of that. Here, I thought childless couples had the same rights as those with children.

They can do so if they wish. That has NOTHING to do with the right of motherhood hence has NOTHING to do with marriage.

Is the right of motherhood the only aspect of marriage that counts for anything?

How about a couple in their 60s, or later. Should they be allowed to marry, even though motherhood is no longer a possibility?

Can you?

Of course. They wouldn't choose that option because they wouldn't get the rights of marriage that are bestowed by the government, such as:

being able to share pensions and health care plans,
being able to file taxes jointly,
being able to visit a loved one in the hospital, as family.

I'm sure that there are others I haven't thought of.

[jb_1430]

And all family relations must, of course, exclude homosexuals. It is much better for society if gays have to go and find sex on the street somewhere than settle down with another gay and form a family.




Who is it thats stopping you?

[Segep]

You know, arguing with you people over this issue is like fighting a tar baby. The most frustrating part is that I understand why you feel that way and there is absolutely nothing I could ever say or do to convince you that my family is just as good as yours.

So I give up. You win. Your way is obviously far superior and us poor, pathetic faggots are good for nothing more than licking your boots.

[jb_1430]

You know, arguing with you people over this issue is like fighting a tar baby. The most frustrating part is that I understand why you feel that way and there is absolutely nothing I could ever say or do to convince you that my family is just as good as yours.

So I give up. You win. Your way is obviously far superior and us poor, pathetic faggots are good for nothing more than licking your boots.

Oooh come on Segep. Its because you dont have an agruement. If you married your boyfriend, your ex would still be the kids mother. If you died the kids would go to the ex, just as if you remarried to another woman. All your other arguements have nothing to do with marriage.

[numinus]

I'm referring to this statement, of course:

Irrelevant. If a woman wants to exercise motherhood, then she should exercise her natural fecundity.

Simple logic, no?

No, of course not. That's why a homosexual couple should be encouraged to marry, just as a heterosexual one should be encouraged to do the same.

Why exactly should homosexual couples be encouraged to marry when such a union NEVER RESULTS IN MOTHERHOOD, hmmm?

Good. I see we agree here. No, no one has the right to adopt. Adoption should be encouraged, of course, as a better alternative to abortion, but adoptive parents need to be chosen carefully.

And yes, every woman, whether gay or straight, should have the right to exercise here natural fecundity, whether in the usual way, or through a medical procedure. I'd even extend that to women whose fecundity, as you put it, is compromised. En vitrio fertilization has come a long way.

One moment you agree with a woman's right to motherhood, and the next moment, you ascribe motherhood to homosexual men?

I really can't see why anyone would take your arguments seriously.

The same way it helps the straight mother when she is married to her straight lover, of course. That's what it's all about, isn't it, marriage in order to establish a nuclear family?

Homosexual unions NEVER EVER RESULT INTO A NUCLEAR FAMILY, EVER.

Feel free to define words as you wish. You're fooling no one.

They do? I wasn't aware of that. Here, I thought childless couples had the same rights as those with children.

What do you suppose is the purpose of the advances in reproductive health, eh? Isn't it exactly for a woman to exercise her right to motherhood?

And isn't infertility a ground for annulment of marriage?

Is the right of motherhood the only aspect of marriage that counts for anything?

As far as the law is concerned, marriage is about the right to motherhood, the rights of children and the family relations that result from them.

How about a couple in their 60s, or later. Should they be allowed to marry, even though motherhood is no longer a possibility?

The oldest mother, if I remember correctly, is a woman in her mid fifties. She had her child at a time when she herself believed she was in menopause.

So, of course a woman in her 60s should be allowed to get married since no one, certainly not you, is in any position to determine an impossibility.

Of course. They wouldn't choose that option because they wouldn't get the rights of marriage that are bestowed by the government, such as:

being able to share pensions and health care plans,
being able to file taxes jointly,

A right to motherhood would be absurd without the necessary conditions that make such a choice viable, no?

And if a single mother has to work for a living, doesn't that, in fact, bear considerable pressure on her responsibilities as a mother?

being able to visit a loved one in the hospital, as family.

Haven't you heard of a special power of attorney? If such a document gives someone a wide array of powers over your affairs, surely mere hospital visitation can be covered by a similar undertaking.

I'm sure that there are others I haven't thought of.

Of course there are other rights - all of them bear (directly or indirectly) to the right to motherhood, the rights of children and family relations.

[numinus]

You know, arguing with you people over this issue is like fighting a tar baby. The most frustrating part is that I understand why you feel that way and there is absolutely nothing I could ever say or do to convince you that my family is just as good as yours.

So I give up. You win. Your way is obviously far superior and us poor, pathetic faggots are good for nothing more than licking your boots.

See. Its not that hard to base your opinions on facts and logic, is it?

[PLC1]

Why exactly should homosexual couples be encouraged to marry when such a union NEVER RESULTS IN MOTHERHOOD, hmmm?

By extension, a woman of say, 55, should not be allowed to marry. She is way past the normal age for motherhood.

Anyway, there is far more to motherhood than simply conceiving and bearing a child. The real work is in raising that child. Two women working together can certainly have a better shot at successful parenthood than a single mom.

One moment you agree with a woman's right to motherhood, and the next moment, you ascribe motherhood to homosexual men?

I really can't see why anyone would take your arguments seriously.

Read it again. I didn't say anything at all about men, homosexual or not. I really think you're out of arguments and grasping at straws.


Homosexual unions NEVER EVER RESULT INTO A NUCLEAR FAMILY, EVER.
Feel free to define words as you wish. You're fooling no one.

Can you prove that? Writing in all caps doesn't lend any credence at all to your assertions. You aren't backing anything up, just shouting.





What do you suppose is the purpose of the advances in reproductive health, eh? Isn't it exactly for a woman to exercise her right to motherhood?

That's the purpose. Motherhood can now be extended to women who have fertility or sexual orientation issues.

And isn't infertility a ground for annulment of marriage?

What rat would dump a woman he loves because she is infertile? That kind of thing went out with the middle ages.


As far as the law is concerned, marriage is about the right to motherhood, the rights of children and the family relations that result from them.

Yes, and things like health insurance, community property, and pensions as well.


The oldest mother, if I remember correctly, is a woman in her mid fifties. She had her child at a time when she herself believed she was in menopause.
So, of course a woman in her 60s should be allowed to get married since no one, certainly not you, is in any position to determine an impossibility.

Nor is it an impossibility for a homosexual woman to conceive, as I've already pointed out. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that it is far more likely for a lesbian couple in their 20s to produce a child than for a heterosexual couple in their 60s to do so.

A right to motherhood would be absurd without the necessary conditions that make such a choice viable, no?

The only necessary conditions to produce a child is a union of sperm and egg. That's all it really takes. To raise a child to adulthood is another matter, and is much easier with a stable relationship of two adults.

And if a single mother has to work for a living, doesn't that, in fact, bear considerable pressure on her responsibilities as a mother?

Yes, it certainly does. Just another reason to promote marriage. Thanks for making my point for me.


Haven't you heard of a special power of attorney? If such a document gives someone a wide array of powers over your affairs, surely mere hospital visitation can be covered by a similar undertaking.

So, you expect the couple to visit an attorney each time one goes to the hospital? Then there is community property, health insurance, and pensions. Those are the real reasons homosexual couples want to marry.

Of course there are other rights - all of them bear (directly or indirectly) to the right to motherhood, the rights of children and family relations.

No, community property, health insurance, and pensions don't have a thing to do with motherhood.

And, as all too many heterosexual women prove every day, marriage is not necessary for motherhood.

See. Its not that hard to base your opinions on facts and logic, is it?

No, it is quite simple, as I've been demonstrating.;)

[jb_1430]

By extension, a woman of say, 55, should not be allowed to marry. She is way past the normal age for motherhood.


Sooo to address this you want to include gays who we know cannot reproduce????? Making the precision of marriage laws even worse. A man and a woman are the ONLY combination that can produce their own child.

[PLC1]

Sooo to address this you want to include gays who we know cannot reproduce????? Making the precision of marriage laws even worse. A man and a woman are the ONLY combination that can produce their own child.

The point is, being able to produce a child is not a prerequisite for marriage. If it were, then neither homosexuals nor senior citizens would be allowed to marry.

[jb_1430]

No, community property, health insurance, and pensions don't have a thing to do with motherhood.



"Community property"? You can duplicate that with a contract. "Health Insurance", "pensions"? Talk to the employers, it is they who are discriminating.

[PLC1]

"Community property"? You can duplicate that with a contract. "Health Insurance", "pensions"? Talk to the employers, it is they who are discriminating.

Health insurance shouldn't be dependent on the employer, but, then, that's a subject for another thread.

Why not just take care of all of the legal issues with a simple marriage contract? Is there a real reason not to?

[numinus]

By extension, a woman of say, 55, should not be allowed to marry. She is way past the normal age for motherhood.

Its her choice. The law cannot limit here choice since she has a RIGHT to motherhood.

Anyway, there is far more to motherhood than simply conceiving and bearing a child. The real work is in raising that child. Two women working together can certainly have a better shot at successful parenthood than a single mom.

Correct. Motherhood is also about providing the environment that a child has A RIGHT to grow in.

Read it again. I didn't say anything at all about men, homosexual or not. I really think you're out of arguments and grasping at straws.

Are you saying that's its ok for homosexual women but not for homosexual men?

Can you prove that? Writing in all caps doesn't lend any credence at all to your assertions. You aren't backing anything up, just shouting.

Of course. Human fecundity isn't possible within a homosexual union. Or do you wish to despute this fact?

That's the purpose. Motherhood can now be extended to women who have fertility or sexual orientation issues.

Correct. What's that got to do with extending family relations with her lesbian lover, hmmm?

What rat would dump a woman he loves because she is infertile? That kind of thing went out with the middle ages.

Whatever species of rodent applies to such a man is irrelevant. The provision only demonstrates the PURPOSE for which the marital institution is made legal.

Yes, and things like health insurance, community property, and pensions as well.

And what do you suppose the purpose of those are, if not to make a woman's right to motherhood viable, hmmm?

Nor is it an impossibility for a homosexual woman to conceive, as I've already pointed out. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that it is far more likely for a lesbian couple in their 20s to produce a child than for a heterosexual couple in their 60s to do so.

You mean it is possible for a woman to concieve WITHIN A HOMOSEXUAL UNION????

And you say it is more likely than a married couple in their 60s????

The only necessary conditions to produce a child is a union of sperm and egg. That's all it really takes. To raise a child to adulthood is another matter, and is much easier with a stable relationship of two adults.

It is the RIGHT of a child to grow up with his/her NATURAL family. Marital and family laws are manifestations of these rrights. This is a principle stated in a un declaration to which the us is a signatory. Do you wish for the us to contradict itself?

Yes, it certainly does. Just another reason to promote marriage. Thanks for making my point for me.

And to hell with the right of the child, eh?

Your argument is becoming clear by the minute - you wish for the absolute right to do as you please without consideration for the rights of others.

So, you expect the couple to visit an attorney each time one goes to the hospital?

Authority may be given for as long as one wishes. So, one undertaking is all that's required.

Then there is community property,

You cannot co-own property with anyone other than your spouse?

health insurance, and pensions.

Why do you suppose couples need to share health insurance and pensions. Its not like one of the spouse need to stay at home and take care of the children, now, is it?

THERE IS NO CHILDREN WITHIN THE UNION.

Those are the real reasons homosexual couples want to marry.

You want rights that are NON-EXISTENT within the union. Now its simply legalized fraud. Thank you for clearing that up.

No, community property, health insurance, and pensions don't have a thing to do with motherhood.

If you merely google un declaration of human rights, you would realize that all that is the direct consequence of the right to motherhood.

And, as all too many heterosexual women prove every day, marriage is not necessary for motherhood.

That may be, but the state, being a signatory to the undhr, need to provide the mechanisms for it anyway. Hence marital laws.

No, it is quite simple, as I've been demonstrating.;)

Duh uh.

Marriage has always been for the purpose of establishing the nuclear family - the fundamental group unit of society (as the undhr states).

How much simpler do you wish me to state that before you realize that a homosexual union DOES NOT CONFORM TO SUCH A PURPOSE.

[PLC1]

Its her choice. The law cannot limit here choice since she has a RIGHT to motherhood.



Correct. Motherhood is also about providing the environment that a child has A RIGHT to grow in.

Correct. That is why we need to allow marriage for everyone who wants it.

Are you saying that's its ok for homosexual women but not for homosexual men?

No, that would be discrimination. Besides, there are other reasons why people marry besides having children, as I've already stated.

Of course. Human fecundity isn't possible within a homosexual union. Or do you wish to despute this fact?

I already did dispute it, quite successfully. Why should I keep repeating myself?

Correct. What's that got to do with extending family relations with her lesbian lover, hmmm?

Who else is she going to seek to have family relations with?

Whatever species of rodent applies to such a man is irrelevant. The provision only demonstrates the PURPOSE for which the marital institution is made legal.

I see. Then, your argument is that any woman who is not fertile should not be allowed to marry, since the only reason for marriage is motherhood. I'm not so sure that argument is tenable.

And what do you suppose the purpose of those are, if not to make a woman's right to motherhood viable, hmmm?

Do you think that pensions, health insurance, and community property have as their sole purpose reproduction of the human race?

You mean it is possible for a woman to concieve WITHIN A HOMOSEXUAL UNION????

Of course it's possible for her to conceive while in a homosexual union. It won't be as a result of that union, of course, but how is that relevant to raising the child?[/QUOTE]

And you say it is more likely than a married couple in their 60s????

It is highly unlikely that any married couple in their 60s are going to be able to have a child. It is very likely that a lesbian couple in their 20s could do so through artificial insemination. It isn't rocket science or magic, but basic biology.

It is the RIGHT of a child to grow up with his/her NATURAL family. Marital and family laws are manifestations of these rrights. This is a principle stated in a un declaration to which the us is a signatory. Do you wish for the us to contradict itself?

So, you think adoption should be discontinued as well?

And to hell with the right of the child, eh?

Your argument is becoming clear by the minute - you wish for the absolute right to do as you please without consideration for the rights of others.

On the contrary, my argument is all about the rights of others. It is your argument that would take away the rights of gays to marry.

Authority may be given for as long as one wishes. So, one undertaking is all that's required.



You cannot co-own property with anyone other than your spouse?

Well, I suppose you could argue that a gay couple could have a marriage ceremony, then enter into an agreement to co own property, have a separate agreement to allow each other visitation rights. That would cover everything except pensions and health insurance. Is your next argument that gays shouldn't be able to share pensions and health insurance, since they can't make babies together, but only with the help of artificial insemination?

Parenthood is far more than having a biological child anyway. The real task is raising a child, whether or not that child shares your DNA.

Why do you suppose couples need to share health insurance and pensions. Its not like one of the spouse need to stay at home and take care of the children, now, is it?

Exactly. That's one reason a gay couple should be able to marry, to better care for any children under their guardianship. The other reason is to have equal rights with their straight counterparts, whether there are any children involved or not.

THERE IS NO CHILDREN WITHIN THE UNION.

That isn't necessarily true, even if you all caps it. Even if you bold it, blow it up big, and paint it red, it still isn't necessarily so.

You want rights that are NON-EXISTENT within the union. Now its simply legalized fraud. Thank you for clearing that up.



If you merely google un declaration of human rights, you would realize that all that is the direct consequence of the right to motherhood.

You keep bringing that up. If you can't bring it up, and quote the part that states that the only reason for marriage is to bring about the right to motherhood, then you're just blowing smoke. Your argument is not valid.

That may be, but the state, being a signatory to the undhr, need to provide the mechanisms for it anyway. Hence marital laws.



Duh uh.

Marriage has always been for the purpose of establishing the nuclear family - the fundamental group unit of society (as the undhr states).

You'll get no argument from me that the fundamental unit of society is the nuclear family. That is the main reason that everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be allowed to marry and have a nuclear family if they wish.

How much simpler do you wish me to state that before you realize that a homosexual union DOES NOT CONFORM TO SUCH A PURPOSE.

Stating it, putting it in caps, doesn't make it true. There is no logical reason why it should not conform to the purpose of raising children. There are other purposes for marriage, of course, but there is no reason gay marriage wouldn't conform to them either.

The difficulty of arguing that gay marriage should be outlawed is that there is no logical way to make such an argument. The reasons for such a ban are based on emotion and religious conviction, not on logic and fact.

[numinus]

Correct. That is why we need to allow marriage for everyone who wants it.

No.

It should and is available for people wishing to establish a NUCLEAR FAMILY THROUGH THEIR OWN NATURAL FECUNDITY.

Understand?

No, that would be discrimination. Besides, there are other reasons why people marry besides having children, as I've already stated.

Of course its discrimination. How else can one view a relationship that is gender-dependent?

I don't doubt that homosexuals want to be in homosexual relationships - for whatever reason. Such reasons do not conform with the purpose of marriage as a legal institution.

Understand?

I already did dispute it, quite successfully. Why should I keep repeating myself?

LMAO. You have done no such thing.

A lesbian in a homosexual union can only get pregnant OUTSIDE THE UNION since her partner can't provide the sperm necessary for reproduction.

Understand?

Who else is she going to seek to have family relations with?

She can have relations with her lesbian partner, surely, but that doesn't qualify as family relations, now, does it?

I see. Then, your argument is that any woman who is not fertile should not be allowed to marry, since the only reason for marriage is motherhood. I'm not so sure that argument is tenable.

That is what reproductive health is for. And if she is proven to be infertile, then such a marriage may be deemed null and void, depending on her spouse. It could work both ways, btw.

Do you think that pensions, health insurance, and community property have as their sole purpose reproduction of the human race?

No. It's purpose is for a woman to exercise her right to motherhood.

Haven't you been listening?

Of course it's possible for her to conceive while in a homosexual union. It won't be as a result of that union, of course, but how is that relevant to raising the child?

How about the child's right to be raised by his/her natural parents, hmmm?

How many more times do I need to repeat this, hmmm?

It is highly unlikely that any married couple in their 60s are going to be able to have a child.

That is not for the law to make a determination.

Understand?

It is very likely that a lesbian couple in their 20s could do so through artificial insemination.

The woman - not the couple. The other lesbian partner is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT TO THE PROCEDURE.

Understand?

It isn't rocket science or magic, but basic biology.

Correct. How come you can't seem to get it?

So, you think adoption should be discontinued as well?

Of course not. However, adoption can only occur once due diligence to find a child's natural family is performed. A mother's right to motherhood and the family relations that accrue from it as well as a child's right to his natural family are INDEFEASIBLE.

Understand?

On the contrary, my argument is all about the rights of others. It is your argument that would take away the rights of gays to marry.

LOL.

I do not presume to take away rights that DOES NOT exist to begin with.

Well, I suppose you could argue that a gay couple could have a marriage ceremony, then enter into an agreement to co own property, have a separate agreement to allow each other visitation rights. That would cover everything except pensions and health insurance. Is your next argument that gays shouldn't be able to share pensions and health insurance, since they can't make babies together, but only with the help of artificial insemination?

Correct.

Planned parenthood is a necessity, even if the state cannot impose it without encroaching on an individual's inalienable right. And while you can do with your body as you wish, you can't force the state to attach legal impetus to whatever choice you make.

Understand?

Parenthood is far more than having a biological child anyway. The real task is raising a child, whether or not that child shares your DNA.

Correction - ....raising a child IN CONFORMITY WITH HIS/HER RIGHTS AS A CHILD.

The conclusion is unmistakable.

Exactly. That's one reason a gay couple should be able to marry, to better care for any children under their guardianship.

By guardianship you mean adoption, no?

What is the sense of adopting a child when that person is financially incapable of such a responsibility, hmmm?

The other reason is to have equal rights with their straight counterparts, whether there are any children involved or not.

And what right might that be, eh? Let me guess - maternity leaves for homosexual men?

That isn't necessarily true, even if you all caps it. Even if you bold it, blow it up big, and paint it red, it still isn't necessarily so.

Good god!

Have you ever heard of a child being concieved within a homosexual union?

You keep bringing that up. If you can't bring it up, and quote the part that states that the only reason for marriage is to bring about the right to motherhood, then you're just blowing smoke. Your argument is not valid.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Satisfied?

You'll get no argument from me that the fundamental unit of society is the nuclear family. That is the main reason that everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be allowed to marry and have a nuclear family if they wish.

Adoption, artificial insemination from unknown donors, surrogate pregnancies ARE NOT examples of nuclear family nor the fundamental group unit being contemplated here - however else you wish to misrepresent the words.

Stating it, putting it in caps, doesn't make it true. There is no logical reason why it should not conform to the purpose of raising children.

Try 'NATURAL AND FUNDAMENTAL GROUP UNIT OF SOCIETY'.

There are other purposes for marriage, of course, but there is no reason gay marriage wouldn't conform to them either.

Of course there are other reasons why gays wish to marry - all of them confined to a PERSONAL NATURE.

The state has no business legislating your personal choices.

The difficulty of arguing that gay marriage should be outlawed is that there is no logical way to make such an argument. The reasons for such a ban are based on emotion and religious conviction, not on logic and fact.

Nobody is outlawing anything. It is not recognized for the simple reason that it does not serve the purpose of the state.

Gay couples can always pretend they are married - complete with ceremony and the whole shebang and no one can stop them.

[9sublime]

I don't think either of you are wrong here, it's just that you have a fundamental difference in your views on the purpose of marriage. Numinus believes it seems that it has to be about producing offspring, whilst PLC and others believe marriage is not exclusivley about sex and children but more symbolic of completing a relationship. I can't see how either side can prove they are more correct than the other as it is just an opinion.

[jb_1430]

I don't think either of you are wrong here, it's just that you have a fundamental difference in your views on the purpose of marriage.


SKINNER v. STATE OF OKL. EX REL. WILLIAMSON, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
...
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race....
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=316&invol=535

[numinus]

I don't think either of you are wrong here, it's just that you have a fundamental difference in your views on the purpose of marriage. Numinus believes it seems that it has to be about producing offspring, whilst PLC and others believe marriage is not exclusivley about sex and children but more symbolic of completing a relationship. I can't see how either side can prove they are more correct than the other as it is just an opinion.

We are talking about LEGALIZING homosexual marriages, hence falls squarely within the POINT OF VIEW OF THE STATE - regardless of the meaning individual couples might attach to it. There is a CLEAR distinction that needs to be made - when you wish homosexual unions to be LEGAL, it necessarily follows that you invite the state in an otherwise PERSONAL CHOICE.

[9sublime]

So you are saying you do not have a problem with homosexuals having all the marriage rights as heterosexuals have as long as its not called marriage?

Semantics by the sound of it.

[PLC1]

Let's take some time to summarize the arguments that have been made:

1. Marriage is exclusively for the purpose of procreation.

counter argument: There are other reasons to enter into a marriage.
For the counter, I've listed other reasons, and have given examples of heterosexual unions that are entered into for purposes other than procreation.

Niminus counters with this quote:

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Where does it say "heterosexual men and women?

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

That should be a given, even if some cultures do have arranged marriages.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.


Yes, that's so. It doesn't support the counter argument, but it is true.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

That one would make a good argument for another thread, perhaps one on universal health care. It doesn't say that procreation is the only reason for a marriage.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.



Yes, all children should have protection, special care, assistance. Children are our future, are our most important citizens. Where does it say that children are the only reason for marriage?

Argument 2: Children can't be conceived by a homosexual couple.

No, that simply is not biologically true. Any woman who is fertile can conceive a child. Anyway, argument 2 depends on argument 1, that the sole purpose for marriage is procreation. That argument has not been supported.

Not only that, but there are heterosexual marriages that are not formed to produce children: Marriages between seniors, marriages between people who don't want children, and marriages of women who are infertile for example. If you're going to argue that gay marriage should not be allowed because the couple in question can't have a biological child of their own, then the argument must extend to heterosexual marriages in which childbirth is not the purpose.


The logical arguments against allowing gay marriages are not tenable. The only real arguments are based on emotion and religious conviction.

[jb_1430]

Let's take some time to summarize the arguments that have been made:

1. Marriage is exclusively for the purpose of procreation.



The reasons people get married isnt the issue. The reason government licenses and regulates marriage is because of procreation.

[jb_1430]

Argument 2: Children can't be conceived by a homosexual couple.

No, that simply is not biologically true.

Well now weve left the domain of reality.


The logical arguments against allowing gay marriages are not tenable.


Neither are the arguements against allowing me to marry my left hand but thats not a reason for the government to step in and license and regulate the activity.
And you are free to marry your dog if you like. That doesnt necessitate the government to step in and license and regulate the relationship.
You need SOME rational purpose for doing so. Other than helping gays feel a little better about themselves.

[PLC1]

The reasons people get married isnt the issue. The reason government licenses and regulates marriage is because of procreation.



Can you back up the assertion that the only reason the government licenses and regulates marriage is because of procreation? That seems to me a broad statement of opinion with no facts to back it up. If it is so, then, anyone who is unable to or unwilling to have children should be prohibited from getting that marriage license.

Well now weve left the domain of reality.

No, we've entered the domain of modern medicine.

[jb_1430]

Can you back up the assertion that the only reason the government licenses and regulates marriage is because of procreation? That seems to me a broad statement of opinion with no facts to back it up. If it is so, then, anyone who is unable to or unwilling to have children should be prohibited from getting that marriage license.

No, we've entered the domain of modern medicine.



SKINNER v. STATE OF OKL. EX REL. WILLIAMSON, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
...
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race....
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=316&invol=535

And in the case of a lesbian couple, it is the pregnant woman and the fertility clinic that concieved the child. The other woman had nothing to do with it.
And a lesbian couple highlights one of the arguements against gay marriage. Children born in a marriage are presumed to be the biological parents. There is no reason whatsoever to presume that is the case in a lesbian couple and to do so would be detrimental to the rights of the father.

[ilikeboobs]

What I have yet to grasp the concept of is this:
Why is it that after, what - 3000+ years of man/woman marriage, do the gays now feel the need to push gay marriage on civilization? Do they think they know more than 3000+ years of wisdom has known?
Someone please enlighten me. And don't give me the "slavery was ok for thousands of years, racism was ok for thousands of years" bull crap...

[PLC1]

SKINNER v. STATE OF OKL. EX REL. WILLIAMSON, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
...
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race....
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=316&invol=535

Your link brought up an ad for lawyers.

If marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, why should it only apply to certain individuals?

The fact that marriage and procreation are uttered in the same sentence doesn't mean that the only reason for marriage is procreation. As I've already said, such an interpretation would exclude some heterosexuals from marriage also. Not only that, but marriage is certainly not a prerequisite for procreation, as all too many single women prove every day.

What I have yet to grasp the concept of is this:
Why is it that after, what - 3000+ years of man/woman marriage, do the gays now feel the need to push gay marriage on civilization? Do they think they know more than 3000+ years of wisdom has known?
Someone please enlighten me. And don't give me the "slavery was ok for thousands of years, racism was ok for thousands of years" bull crap...


I think you've answered your own question. Just because slavery and racism was thought to be OK for thousands of years, doesn't make it OK. Just because humans once believed the Earth to be flat doesn't make it so. Because humans once believed that diseases were caused by evil spirits or by the evil eye, doesn't negate modern medicine. Humans progress. Human society progresses.

[jb_1430]

Your link brought up an ad for lawyers.

If marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, why should it only apply to certain individuals?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=316&invol=535


Because ONLY a man and woman can produce their own child



If a lesbian woman comes up pregnant you can be assured someone other than her lesbian lover is the father.

[AlicornsPrayer]

If a lesbian woman comes up pregnant you can be assured someone other than her lesbian lover is the father.

And there's hetrosexual women who get pregnant, who's husbands aren't the father either...

[jb_1430]

And there's hetrosexual women who get pregnant, who's husbands aren't the father either...

Correct. And if that woman is in a marriage, the husband is presumed to be the father. Thats what marriage is all about. Preventing illigitimacy. Avoiding leaving women solely responsible for the upbringing of her children. With the advent of paternity testing the need for marriage laws isnt as essential as it once was. There just isnt any issue in a gay relaionship that warrants government licensing and regulation. Not then and not now.
Just look into his eyes lovingly, tell him until death do we part, and start refering to him as your wife. Done deal.

[PLC1]

Correct. And if that woman is in a marriage, the husband is presumed to be the father. Thats what marriage is all about. Preventing illigitimacy. Avoiding leaving women solely responsible for the upbringing of her children. With the advent of paternity testing the need for marriage laws isnt as essential as it once was. There just isnt any issue in a gay relaionship that warrants government licensing and regulation. Not then and not now.
Just look into his eyes lovingly, tell him until death do we part, and start refering to him as your wife. Done deal.

Yes, except for the other reasons I've already partially enumerated for two people to get married.

Gays should have the same rights as straights. Do argue otherwise is to argue that gays somehow "choose" to be gay. That is simply not the case.

[PLC1]

If a lesbian woman comes up pregnant you can be assured someone other than her lesbian lover is the father.

Most likely, a sperm donor that they decided to use in order to start a family the only way possible. So?

[jb_1430]

Most likely, a sperm donor that they decided to use in order to start a family the only way possible. So?

Or, some guy she banged when drifting to the other side for a taste.

[jb_1430]

Gays should have the same rights as straights.

???? why is that? Encouraging Men and women to raise their own children is a valid purpose. Cant imagine any purpose whatsoever in regulating and licensing gays.

[PLC1]

???? why is that? Encouraging Men and women to raise their own children is a valid purpose. Cant imagine any purpose whatsoever in regulating and licensing gays.

When you diminish the rights of one segment of the population, you diminish the rights of everyone. That's why gays and straights should have the same rights. To diminish someone because of their sexual orientation is no different from diminishing someone because of his race, religion, or ethnicity.

[jb_1430]

When you diminish the rights of one segment of the population, you diminish the rights of everyone. That's why gays and straights should have the same rights. To diminish someone because of their sexual orientation is no different from diminishing someone because of his race, religion, or ethnicity.

Nobody is diminishing anyone. But I understand you feel that way. Thats what this is all about anyway. Wanting to feel a little bit less diminished and believing a government endorsement of your relationship will make you feel less diminished

[PLC1]

Nobody is diminishing anyone. But I understand you feel that way. Thats what this is all about anyway. Wanting to feel a little bit less diminished and believing a government endorsement of your relationship will make you feel less diminished

Government endorsement would give gays the same rights as straights. It isn't a matter of how they feel. It is a matter of having the same rights as the rest of us.

[AlicornsPrayer]

Correct. And if that woman is in a marriage, the husband is presumed to be the father. Thats what marriage is all about. Preventing illigitimacy. Avoiding leaving women solely responsible for the upbringing of her children. With the advent of paternity testing the need for marriage laws isnt as essential as it once was. There just isnt any issue in a gay relaionship that warrants government licensing and regulation. Not then and not now.
Just look into his eyes lovingly, tell him until death do we part, and start refering to him as your wife. Done deal.


Ahhh, I'm talking about where the husband knows up front that the child isn't biologically his, but that him and his wife have a planned pregnancy, where they will raise the child as his none-the-less...

It's called SPERM DONOR/ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION...


And here you are going off about illegitimacy and paternety testing? What were you talking about...

Ohhhh, you thought I was referring to cheating spouses...You were wrong.

[AlicornsPrayer]

Most likely, a sperm donor that they decided to use in order to start a family the only way possible. So?

They'd be using the same methods that hetrosexuals who have infertility issues but want children, do every day in the US. Surigacy, adoption, donors, etc...

[numinus]

So you are saying you do not have a problem with homosexuals having all the marriage rights as heterosexuals have as long as its not called marriage?

Semantics by the sound of it.

Correct. It is a problem of semantics. Unfortunately, the language of the law is PRECISE - hence the need to be PRECISE.

There ARE NO RIGHTS to be had in marriage other than those that derive from the RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD, RIGHTS OF CHILDREN, AND FAMILY RELATIONS. The rest of the alleged rights may be had simply through any lawyer and a healthy amount of foresight.

[PLC1]

Correct. It is a problem of semantics. Unfortunately, the language of the law is PRECISE - hence the need to be PRECISE.

There ARE NO RIGHTS to be had in marriage other than those that derive from the RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD, RIGHTS OF CHILDREN, AND FAMILY RELATIONS. The rest of the alleged rights may be had simply through any lawyer and a healthy amount of foresight.

Well, if you put it in all caps and bold it, it must be true, right?:rolleyes:

[numinus]

Let's take some time to summarize the arguments that have been made:

1. Marriage is exclusively for the purpose of procreation.

Wrong.

It is about motherhood (which includes the female genders procreative potential), the rights of children and family relations.

You should stop summarizing others' arguments if you can't do a satisfactory job of it.

counter argument: There are other reasons to enter into a marriage.
For the counter, I've listed other reasons, and have given examples of heterosexual unions that are entered into for purposes other than procreation.

Which makes this counter argument entirely irrelevant since you have NEVER addressed the RIGHTS OF CHILDREN. They have rights too, you know. The fact that they are among the weakest members of society all the more justifies government protection in regards to laws and institutions.

Niminus counters with this quote:

Where does it say "heterosexual men and women?

It says 'without limitation due to race, nationality and religion...'. If homosexual marriages were contemplated at all in the declaration, it would have been a simple matter to include 'gender', no?

Yes, that's so. It doesn't support the counter argument, but it is true.

The word NATURAL says tons about this article. Under no circumstance can a homosexual union be mistaken for a natural union.

That one would make a good argument for another thread, perhaps one on universal health care. It doesn't say that procreation is the only reason for a marriage.

Again, you missed the word WIDOWHOOD - which recognizes the financial aspect of marriage. It assumes the responsibility of the mother lies within the home, as is her right.

Which supports my contention all along - that the right to motherhood, to have any meaning, requires some sort of financial support.

Yes, all children should have protection, special care, assistance. Children are our future, are our most important citizens. Where does it say that children are the only reason for marriage?

It says that a union that does not result in children does not need any legal apparatus since it is merely an agreement between two consenting adults, just like any contract.

A union that potentially results in children would naturally involve another human being that have absolutely NO SAY INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCE HE/SHE WAS BORN IN - hence the necessity for a legal apparatus - MARRIAGE.

Argument 2: Children can't be conceived by a homosexual couple.

No, that simply is not biologically true. Any woman who is fertile can conceive a child. Anyway, argument 2 depends on argument 1, that the sole purpose for marriage is procreation. That argument has not been supported.

But the child cannot be concieved WITHIN the union. Enter the right of the child to grow up with his natural parents.

Capice?

Not only that, but there are heterosexual marriages that are not formed to produce children: Marriages between seniors,

The only time that the possibility of children within a union becomes absolutely null is when one of the spouses die - which effectively terminates the marriage, no?

marriages between people who don't want children,

We are talking of the possibility of children. When such a possibility manifests, regardless of what the spouses want, their responsibilities and privileges are already clear.

and marriages of women who are infertile for example.

Infertility is covered under a person's privacy. The state cannot compel anyone to divulge such a thing, nor can the intending spouse. It is enough that the dissolution of marriage is possible once the condition is known. And here I am talking of a null marriage, not merely a divorce.

If you're going to argue that gay marriage should not be allowed because the couple in question can't have a biological child of their own, then the argument must extend to heterosexual marriages in which childbirth is not the purpose.

And how the hell can the state know for certain the intentions of the spouses, eh?

In homosexual unions, the intention is quite clear.

The logical arguments against allowing gay marriages are not tenable. The only real arguments are based on emotion and religious conviction.

It is untenable because you deliberately misrepresent the arguments being put forth.

[numinus]

Well, if you put it in all caps and bold it, it must be true, right?:rolleyes:

Correct. I'm brilliant that way.

[PLC1]

Correct. I'm brilliant that way.

Yes, just not in being able to back up your repetitive arguments.

Like this one:

It says that a union that does not result in children does not need any legal apparatus since it is merely an agreement between two consenting adults, just like any contract.


"It" says that a union that does not result in children.... Is this it a definitive definition of marriage? Does it really say that a childless marriage is not a real marriage?

Isn't a marriage an agreement between two consenting adults anyway?

And this one:

Wrong.

It is about motherhood (which includes the female genders procreative potential), the rights of children and family relations.

You should stop summarizing others' arguments if you can't do a satisfactory job of it.

So, it is only about the mother's procreation? The father has nothing to do with it? Then, I suppose a lesbian couple would have a doubly good marriage, since there are two female genders involved, both able to procreate.

And there is this excellent example of circular reasoning:

The word NATURAL says tons about this article. Under no circumstance can a homosexual union be mistaken for a natural union.



A homosexual union is not a natural union, because homosexuality is unnatural, so a homosexual union is not natural.

That, of course, ignores the fact that god himself created homosexuals. How can you say that his creation is unnatural?

And, then, I keep reading different variations of this theme:

A union that potentially results in children would naturally involve another human being that have absolutely NO SAY INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCE HE/SHE WAS BORN IN - hence the necessity for a legal apparatus - MARRIAGE.

Therefore, a child who has been conceived by artificial insemination, or has been adopted, should have the same rights as one who is being raised by heterosexual partners, whether or not they are the biological parents of the child. Therefore, anyone should be allowed to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, in order to protect the children who had no say as to the circumstances into which he/she was born.

You are making my argument for me.

I have to give you credit for persistence. You have taken on an untenable position, one that has no fact or logic on its side, yet haven't given up.

Nor have you resorted to the "It's wrong because God says so" argument. I'll give you a lot of credit for that.

[Izz]

How sanctified is a marriage between a man and a woman with a divorce rate of over 40%? And what right does any person have to tell someone that they can't marry the person they love, even if that person is the same gender? Politics and religion aside, it is butting in on someone else's private affair.
The only reason a marriage is considered the union of a man and a woman is because that's how it's always been. Once a black man couldn't vote, because that's how it had always been. A woman couldn't hold a job- that was how it had always been. Why block change? Change is, after all, the only real constant of life.
I see no reason two men or two women couldn't get married. I know the children of homosexual parents and they are normal, functioning individuals with healthy social relationships and decent education.
It is true that a homosexual relationship could go just as wrong as a heterosexual relationship, but they hold together the same way. To deny a person the right to marry the one they love is indecent, practically immoral, and insulting. There is no rule in the constitution that states love is between a man and a woman only, and civil unions are already legal in several states. Trying to stop this is like trying to stop an avalanche, and whatever conservative shield you make, be it 'it is against god' or 'it is unnatural', it won't do a damn thing.

[jb_1430]

Ahhh, I'm talking about where the husband knows up front that the child isn't biologically his, but that him and his wife have a planned pregnancy, where they will raise the child as his none-the-less...

It's called SPERM DONOR/ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION...

And here you are going off about illegitimacy and paternety testing? What were you talking about...

Ohhhh, you thought I was referring to cheating spouses...You were wrong.

Aaaaaand in most states, if they are both married and cohabitating, the man will be presumed to be the biological father of the child. Doesnt matter if its a one night stand or artificial insemination. In many states, after the kid is two, the child is conclusively presumed to be the biological (child of the) father. Even a dna test cant rebut the presumption. And I am talking about what marriage laws are all about. Did you think marriage laws were because two people are rubbing their genitals together, and not because what can happen when a man and a woman rub their genitals together?

[jb_1430]

How sanctified is a marriage between a man and a woman with a divorce rate of over 40%? And what right does any person have to tell someone that they can't marry the person they love, even if that person is the same gender? Politics and religion aside, it is butting in on someone else's private affair.


Look into his eyes lovingly, promise till death do you part, start calling him your wife, done deal. No one is telling you anything.
The dont be butting in arguement is a little tortured when you are longing for the government to but in and license and regulate your personal relationship.

[Izz]

Aaaaaand in most states, if they are both married and cohabitating, the man will be presumed to be the biological father of the child. Doesnt matter if its a one night stand or artificial insemination. In many states, after the kid is two, the child is conclusively presumed to be the biological father. Even a dna test cant rebut the presumption. And I am talking about what marriage laws are all about. Did you think marriage laws were because two people are rubbing their genitals together, and not because what can happen when a man and a woman rub their genitals together?

"In many states, after the kid is two, the child is conclusively presumed to be the biological father."

I'm my own daddy. Nice.

So what you're saying that a marriage is only for the sake of children, is that it? Then tell me why there are thousands of happily married couples without children. If what you are saying is true, wouldn't it make more sense to annul a marriage that does not produce offspring? Is that what you would prefer?

Which means, of course, that marriage is all about biology, not love or companionship or happiness. Of COURSE, why didn't I know that? Everyone gets married because they're a horn dog who wants to reproduce. Obviously.

In the typical marriage vows, unaltered by bride or groom, there is no mention of children. It is a bond of love, not of reproduction. If what you are saying is true, that marriage is for the sake of the children, then why do we have large, elaborate ceremonies at all? Certainly not for the children, who generally haven't been conceived yet.

[jb_1430]

So what you're saying that a marriage is only for the sake of children, is that it?

Nooooooo. The purpose of the marriage LAWS is for the sake of children, and women. People get married for any number of reasons.

[jb_1430]

In the typical marriage vows, unaltered by bride or groom, there is no mention of children.

"Vows" no one is talking about vows. Marriage LAWS. Nothing in the vows that says if things dont work out we split the property down the middle, but thats what the law says.

[numinus]

Yes, just not in being able to back up your repetitive arguments.

Like this one:

Not my problem if you are intellectually challenged.


"It" says that a union that does not result in children.... Is this it a definitive definition of marriage? Does it really say that a childless marriage is not a real marriage?

I meant the uhdr - the document you were addressing your arguments to.

Isn't a marriage an agreement between two consenting adults anyway?

Yes it is a contract in the broadest sense - a meeting of minds (or hearts, if you are romantically inclined).

However, it is the ONLY CONTRACT THAT BINDS ANOTHER PERSON NOT PARTY TO IT - CHILDREN. Naturally, it becomes subject to government regulation.

And this one:



So, it is only about the mother's procreation? The father has nothing to do with it?

The parenthood of the biological father is utterly dependent on the SUFFERANCE OF THE MOTHER. The biological father HAS NO PARENTAL RIGHTS without marriage.

Even with marriage, the rights of the mother regarding custody in the event of dissolution supersedes that of the father.

Then, I suppose a lesbian couple would have a doubly good marriage, since there are two female genders involved, both able to procreate.

Both CANNOT PROCREATE WITHIN THE UNION. The nuclear family IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHIN THE UNION. You supposed wrong.

Why insist on calling it a marriage when the purposes of marriage is NOT POSSIBLE, eh????

And there is this excellent example of circular reasoning:

A homosexual union is not a natural union, because homosexuality is unnatural, so a homosexual union is not natural.

How is this a circular argument, eh?

Do you deny that the sexual act is FUNDAMENTALLY, A PRO-CREATIVE MECHANISM OF THE SPECIE?

That, of course, ignores the fact that god himself created homosexuals. How can you say that his creation is unnatural?

God created a human person who chooses (by virtue of his free will) to ignore the pro-creative potential god gave him. Capice?

And, then, I keep reading different variations of this theme:



Therefore, a child who has been conceived by artificial insemination, or has been adopted, should have the same rights as one who is being raised by heterosexual partners, whether or not they are the biological parents of the child. Therefore, anyone should be allowed to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, in order to protect the children who had no say as to the circumstances into which he/she was born.

What are you talking about???

A heterosexual married woman opting for artificial insemination USUALLY gets her husband's sperm. And if, for some reason, you are talking about a married woman opting for the sperm of another man, the situation paints a truly bizzare picture, one can't help but wonder how desperate you are with your argument.

In assigning foster parents to an orphaned child, the state necessarily DISCRIMINATES in order to determine what would best serve the INTERESTS OF THE CHILD.

Cetainly, one would imagine financial stability as one of the requirements, don't you think? So tell me, how can a couple demonstrate financial stability on the one hand, and whine about tax perks of married couples on the other, eh?

You are making my argument for me.

I have to give you credit for persistence. You have taken on an untenable position, one that has no fact or logic on its side, yet haven't given up.

Nor have you resorted to the "It's wrong because God says so" argument. I'll give you a lot of credit for that.

Fact - the universal declaration of human rights states the principles for which marital laws should be concieved.

Fact - the udhr makes NO mention, nor allusion, to any sort of homosexual union in stating the marital rights of an individual.

Fact - the right to motherhood is a SPECIAL RIGHT accorded to all the members of the female gender.

Fact - the rights of children are SPECIAL RIGHTS under the udhr and is expounded in detail in a similar declaration.

Fact - the nuclear (natural) family can only be established by the UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN.

Fact - the rights of married couples come from the responsibilities bestowed upon them in the natural and logical course of the exercise of the above rights.

Are these facts enough for you, hmmm?

[PLC1]

Not my problem if you are intellectually challenged.

I see you are out of arguments and have descended into personal insults.:rolleyes:


I meant the uhdr - the document you were addressing your arguments to.

That's what I thought. "It" still doesn't say that the only purpose of marriage is motherhood.

Yes it is a contract in the broadest sense - a meeting of minds (or hearts, if you are romantically inclined).

However, it is the ONLY CONTRACT THAT BINDS ANOTHER PERSON NOT PARTY TO IT - CHILDREN. Naturally, it becomes subject to government regulation.

That is only true if children become involved. A childless couple is just as married as one with children.



The parenthood of the biological father is utterly dependent on the SUFFERANCE OF THE MOTHER. The biological father HAS NO PARENTAL RIGHTS without marriage.


Even with marriage, the rights of the mother regarding custody in the event of dissolution supersedes that of the father.

Another argument in favor of homosexual marriage, at least of women. The father has no parental rights anyway.


Both CANNOT PROCREATE WITHIN THE UNION. The nuclear family IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHIN THE UNION. You supposed wrong.

That is not relevant.

Why insist on calling it a marriage when the purposes of marriage is NOT POSSIBLE, eh????

That argument is dependent on the premise that the only purpose of marriage is motherhood. That premise has already been disproven.

How is this a circular argument, eh?

I already explained that.

Do you deny that the sexual act is FUNDAMENTALLY, A PRO-CREATIVE MECHANISM OF THE SPECIE?

A sexual act can be many things: An attempt to pass one's genes on to the next generation, an expression of love, a simple bodily function, even an attack. Every sexual act certainly doesn't result in procreation. If it did, we'd be hip deep in babies.

God created a human person who chooses (by virtue of his free will) to ignore the pro-creative potential god gave him. Capice?

No, God created some people who have a sexual attraction to their own gender. I'm not sure why, but that's how it is. Do you want to start a discussion of whether homosexuality is a choice? I'm afraid you'd be arguing from a disadvantage again.


What are you talking about???

A heterosexual married woman opting for artificial insemination USUALLY gets her husband's sperm. And if, for some reason, you are talking about a married woman opting for the sperm of another man, the situation paints a truly bizzare picture, one can't help but wonder how desperate you are with your argument.

That is irrelevant. If a man is sterile, is his wife to divorce him and find another mate who can impregnate her? What is wrong with going to a sperm bank?

Human beings are defined more by culture than by genes. The lesser species have a biological imperative to pass on their genes, but we can do much more by