Discussion on Same-Sex Marriage: State, Federal, Community

While I certainly don't support getting rid of marriage, having the government keep its nose out of the social and familial groups that people form by not recognizing any form of union (which is what I believe you're suggesting) is something I strongly support. While having the government recognize unions is convenient in many ways, it's not needed, and it would solve a lot of people's moral, ideological, religious, and legal issues in the blink of an eye.

-Paul

 

I don't have any problems with Gays or civil unions or Gay adoptions cause I believe everyone should have an opportunity to have a child but I do have a problem with Gay marriage because the gays that get married or want to get married do it for the benefits and marriage is between a man and a woman. I am sorry if this offends anyone but that is my opinion

 

In a relative sense I agree with Lily. If it is the rights that are desired, than a civil union fulfils that duty to equality. Is there cause to push the line further? I think not.

 

christianity has nothing against being homosexual

 

Lily: I don't have any problems with Gays or civil unions or Gay adoptions cause I believe everyone should have an opportunity to have a child but I do have a problem with Gay marriage because the gays that get married or want to get married do it for the benefits and marriage is between a man and a woman. I am sorry if this offends anyone but that is my opinion

If "these gays" are just getting martried because of the rights marriage confers, then you would gladly give up the federal rights granted to you as a heterosexual spouse (or future spouse) as a show of support for the true meaning of marriage, which clearly is about the commitment between spouses, not federal rights, wouldn't you?

I'm glad to hear that you would return to the true meaning of marriage and abandon all those rights granted by the federal government.

Do you understand what those rights are?

Let's see. For starters, there's dual-parenting responsibility, which means basically that both parents bear the responsibility of raising any children under their guardianship.

Also, there is the whole marriage tax thing. You realize that a dual-income married couple pays more in taxes than two individuals filing taxes, right? Woohoo! No wonder they're so eager to rape the system of its bountiful benefits.

Oh, hey, let's not forget about legal protections like the guaranteed recognition as next of kin when deciding on medical care when the other is incapacitated. Those evil bastards, trying mooch off the rights of real relatives. Right?

You see, Lily, the only thing that really bothers me about this idea that gays only want to marry because of the benefits is that it ignores the truth. Many couples who have been fighting for so long to get equal protections and yes, benefits, are already in monogomous relationships. The difference is that unlike my wife and I, these couples are not granted all the rights "married" people have.

You say you have a problem with same-sex couples maryring for the benfits, but you also say "I don't have any problems with Gays or civil unions or Gay adoptions". So you are fine with same-sex couples having equal rights under civil unions, but not under marriage? Do you see the cavernous flaw in your statement yet?

I have another question that will trump your "problem with gay marriage": Do you think some heterosexual couples might marry for the benefits?

Nah, that would never happen, because heterosexuals are honest, moral people that follow the law to the L-E-T-T-E-R. Homosexuals, on the other hand...

Am I over the top? Probably. It emulates your accusation of homosexual couples.

Jedi_Master_Anakin: If it is the rights that are desired, than a civil union fulfils that duty to equality. Is there cause to push the line further? I think not.

yet the rights are already granted through marriage. Why not grant them the same recognition of marriage? Remember the fate of Jim Crow laws before you answer that.

 

Marriage is between a man and a woman. One main reason is because marriage is for procreation

 

Marriage is between a man and a woman. One main reason is because marriage is for procreation

Oh sweet Jesus, not this again.

NO IT ISN'T!!!

Mein Gott im Himmel! When will this idiocy end?!



b4k4^2

 

Marriage is between a man and a woman. One main reason is because marriage is for procreation.

Really? So, if marriage is for procreation, we should deny marriage to anyone who is incapable of reproducing or who choses not to reproduce, right? People who have operations that prevent precreation should be denied marriage, or have their marriages annulled, right? Men or women who are medically unable to reproduce should be denied marriage outright. Correct?

And yet we, with our government, allow these people to marry and remain married, despite the lack of children! How is this possible, if marriage is about procreation??

I will say this again for those who do not read the previous posts: Get your government to pass into law a requirement for marriage that says the couple must procreate as their duty in marriage, and you will have a "procreation argument" against SSM.

Until people are denied by law the right to marry because they cannot or will not conceive, the "marriage is for making babies" argument is irrelevent.

 

Marriage is between a man and a woman. One main reason is because marriage is for procreation

In this day and age that's not really true. I like to get married one day and it's not because I want to have children. Most children are annoying and I could do without them.
Marriage is joining in union with the person you love, so who cares if they are marrying the same sex as themselves?
Many people need to focus on important things like poverty, wars and the such instead of worrying that Jim is marrying Bob on Tuesday. I think it's unfair that gay couples can't get the same benefits that a straight couple can. What is a good reason to deny them that, can someone answer that because I really want to know.
I also cringe when people bring up the Bible, that's not a valid reason, Separation of Church and State anyone? Should we deny marriage to people who don't believe in the Christian God , what about Atheists? In my opinion, there is no good reason to deny anyone marriage. It's between the couple, it's not harming anyone except closeminded people.

 

It's a well-documented fact that atheists, agnostics, and followers of eastern philosophies can't marry here in the USA. Neither are childless married couples allowed to remain married. I won't even go into what "they" do to married couples who adopt! Let's just say... their marriage is voided by law without biological offspring in the house. Did you also know that post-menopausal women aren't allowed to marry, because their bodies can no longer have children? Yep, that's right. No married or re-married 80-year-old grannies because they can't be granny-mommies.

I don't think people really understand the full ramifications of saying "marriage is about having babies" when they use that as an argument against SSM.

Here's the big issue in that argument: CHILDBEARING IS NOT A FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FOR MARRIAGE;

therefor...

CHILDBEARING IS NOT A VALID LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR DENYING THE RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

When the legislature makes it a law to set a vow of childbearing as a requisite for marriage, then you'll have a case.

Until then, understand that childless couples get married every weekend in the USA, and remain childless and married.

And Lily, you didn't respond to my assumption, so I'll ask you point-blank: Are you willing to give up all the rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities given through marriage as a basic human right? I am, and I'm married. I'd rather relinquish my benefits and my rights to be with my wife, the one I love.

Gay couples already have relinquished their benefits and their rights to be with the individuals they love.

 

Chev, you are exactly correct in asserting that procreation is not the sole criteria for marriage. However...


If marriage is truly about the government's blessing on, legal protection for and social promotion of the family, then procreation plays a big part in that. For example, an infertile couple or a couple who decides not to have children are ceasing from procreation due to unnatural or personal choice reasons. Both are naturally capable of procreating. That cannot be said of the same-sex marriage. There is a difference.

 

So what? What is the difference between a gay couple that adopts, has children from previous marriage, or say two lesbians who get artificial insemination?

 

So what? What is the difference between a gay couple that adopts, has children from previous marriage, or say two lesbians who get artificial insemination?

Because, those children from the previous marriage scenario are biologically the children of a person who conceived through natural processes. Artifical insemination is not natural, regardless of whether or not you think the fact that children are being raised without their mother never even meeting the father is outrageous (in the sense it could have been prevented, so conception through rape would be different).

In sum, you have the natural foundation of a family (male and female participants knowingly and willingly creating a child that is theirs) making the difference.

 

So you wish to ban invitro and adoption? Your post makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Many people need to focus on important things like poverty, wars and the such instead of worrying that Jim is marrying Bob on Tuesday.

Do those "many people" include the folks at the ACLU and GLAAD?

So you wish to ban invitro and adoption? Your post makes no sense whatsoever.

Why? Because you don't agree? If so, then say it. Don't spin and appeal to some "sense" standard.

 

Invitro is a natural process, if you mix a sperm and an egg you have a natural process. How that process is carried out makes little difference. What if a guy masturbates into a woman's undies and she scratches down there and the little bit of remaining sperm enter her and she becomes pregnant? That's a natural process. Taking udder tissue and transforming that into the egg's nucleus (process for cloning) and then fertilize it with sperm is not a natural process. Do you see the difference?

 

Invitro is a natural process, if you mix a sperm and an egg you have a natural process.

But not necessarily natural causation. The fact that, in the specific case with a lesbian couple, the sperm came from someone not involved with that couple seems at least to me somewhat problematic for those who insist such a group is a natural family.


How that process is carried out makes little difference. What if a guy masturbates into a woman's undies and she scratches down there and the little bit of remaining sperm enter her and she becomes pregnant? That's a natural process.

I would call that sexual assault.

Taking udder tissue and transforming that into the egg's nucleus (process for cloning) and then fertilize it with sperm is not a natural process. Do you see the difference?

Yes, and I think you're right. When I say natural, I suppose I mean what is ordinarily a part of marriage and conception. Therefore, artifical insemination would not, in that case, be necessarily natural.

 

But not necessarily natural causation. The fact that, in the specific case with a lesbian couple, the sperm came from someone not involved with that couple seems at least to me somewhat problematic for those who insist such a group is a natural family.

I see. Then step-parents are not able to file as legal guardians for children frome their spouse's previous marriage due to their marriage status? guess what... They do.

In your push for a utopian society, you are ignoring both reality and law.

Right now, in our laws, marriage does not require biological children as a condition of marriage. period. Whether by choice or by medical affliction--yes there are medical instances that can leave women "barren", and men infertile.

Because this condition is lacking, it cannot be used as a reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

Here's a homework assignment for you. A little research experiment, if you will. Stand before any court of law--or any attorney, for that matter--and tell them that SSM should be denied because marriage is about having babies.

Let me know what they say to you.

 

Citizen Kane, your posts have no bearing or relevence to this issue. As Chevy has adequetly pointed out time and time again, reproduction has NOTHING to do with the legal requirement of marriage.

Furthermore, even if it did, there is NOTHING to suggest that having Children the old fashioned way is hte ONLY thing we want to protect. Are you daft man? Don't we want to care for ALL children? How many kids need homes, need to be adopted by loving parents? This goes for gay or straight couples who can't have children the old fashioned way.

You sir, are displaying some extreme foolishness.

 

But not necessarily natural causation. The fact that, in the specific case with a lesbian couple, the sperm came from someone not involved with that couple seems at least to me somewhat problematic for those who insist such a group is a natural family.

Does that really matter? Sperm donation is usually anonymous, but nevertheless it is a natural family. The problem with your view is that it has become narrowed to this view that there is one ?natural? form of a family. There isn?t. Just because it did not come from both parents does not mean the child is no less natural.

I would call that sexual assault.

I would call that amusing. But what if the guy was married to her? Quite a conundrum in figuring out what that is. Which is why narrow views fail in deciding something such as that.

Yes, and I think you're right. When I say natural, I suppose I mean what is ordinarily a part of marriage and conception.

Marriage and conception do not go hand-in-hand, as you can plainly see; so not even that is considered ?natural?. I very rarely call things unnatural, because it?s hard to say what is natural. When you say ?natural? you?re implying that something happens in nature. In the case of marriage, that is really not natural. Choosing a mate and impregnating her is natural. So really, the only thing that is natural in marriage is conception. And I said ?choose a mate? not a life partner. Those two don?t go hand-in-hand and very few animals are monogamous. Vultures and a tape worm that sticks to its partner are really the only animals that I know of that are monogamous.


Therefore, artifical insemination would not, in that case, be necessarily natural.

And neither is marriage.

 

You sir, are displaying some extreme foolishness.

Not foolishness, I think. It is simply shortsighted. So focused is this opinion on the concept of what marriage should be, those who recite it neglect to incorporate others who exist outside of their personal ideals.

To say marriage is about procreation is to say that people who aren't married can't have babies, and those babies that are born outside of marriage are inferior to those born within marriage.

It completely ignores the vast amount of children who exist outside of marriage, and outside this perceived ideal of a family unit (1 man, 1 woman), including children whose second parent has died or is otherwise not part fo their lives.

Given his sentiments, I'm sure CK doesn't not want to prevent through popular vote familial stability for these children, but that is exactly what he is doing to children who have gay parents.

The shortsightedness of the argument also ignores the great number of couples who do not, for one reason or another, have children.

It's not foolishness. It's a failure to incorporate [all]. That is the singular difference between social criteria and legal/constitutional criteria:

Society <good or bad> can discriminate.
Law and the Constitution cannot.

 

First of all, I would kindly ask that you cease your assaults on my intelligence and actually discuss the facts (as FID has).

Second, I want to reiterate what I said at the beginning of my first post: It is is correct that childbearing and procreation are not required for legal marriage. In your vitrol, you apparently missed that post.

Thirdly, I want to make it clear that when a lesbian couple goes through artifical insemination and bears a child, that child is only half-theirs to begin with. This is unlike stepparens, where one parent had a biologically natural process that resulted in a child that was both theirs and their partners. In step parents, the child has another biological parent, whom the the parent the child resides with now ACTUALLY KNEW AND WILLINGLY CREATED A CHILD WITH!.

In same-sex households (specifically lesbian), a child is born with only one parent! As some of my stats in another thread point out, this has proven to be disadvantageous to the child. Again I ask, why would the government legalize, bless and promote situations in which, for all intrinsic purposes, chldren are born fatherless! You cannot call that natural, nor can you call that right.

 

What are your views on a single-parent household?

 

*sigh* Look, the whole "same-sex marriages won't work because children need TWO different-sex parents!" doesn't quite hold water. Many people only grow up with just a mother or just a father and turn out great. Many people have a nuclear family and turn out to be complete and utter nutjobs.

First off, not all people get married to have kids. Some do it for the company, some do it to mutually enrich each other's lives, some do it for money, and some do it for publicity stunts. Don't try and give me that "marriage is a sacred union" bull if you're not picketing outside of divorce courts, reality TV studios, and celebrity houses.

I think gay people should be allowed to marry. I think they're gonna have to take the civil union small victories first, though, as unfair as that may be. In my opinion, it's gonna be the step which shows the general public that gay people in a loving relationship are NOT a threat to them and will get the ball rolling on marriage.

 

Citizen Kane, did you know that Paul McCartney was the first one to officially announce that the Beatles were splitting?

Or did you know that they just created a vaccine for the STD HPV?

Point is...so what. Your post is consistently irrelevant. Who cares how someone produces a child? What difference does it make? The problems facing gay couples face ANY couple that cannot bear children.

Since I know that you won't ban marriage for sterile couples, why would ban them for gays? It's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, it makes no sense to even consider it, you have already stated that it isn't a legal requirement for marriage, so why would it serve as a rhetorical argument to bar gays from marriage?