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.