10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong

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?
 
Werbung:
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?


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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
"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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Werbung:
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.
 
Back
Top