10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong

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.
 
Werbung:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
Werbung:
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.
 
Back
Top