Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

I fail to see how that is relevant. As far as I know, I'm not writing to you via the telegraph either. Society has new technology, time to get with the times J-Rod. I'm even sure that if we really wanted to, we could even go as far as your 50/50 (and very, very arbitrary) rule.

Just asking, in vitro children to you aren't really human beings, is that it? Re-marrying is off the table as well, right? No children from previous relations, better no dad than a step-dad!

Or am I missing something here?

 

Eggs fertilised without sperm

I suspect that within our lifetimes, it will become viable for a lesbian couple to undergo IVF using both women's DNA rather than one woman's and a sperm donor's.

 

That might be a bad idea from a scientific point of view, but I won't go into it.

People were asking above why marriage exists, and while I agree that in the past it would have been about children, property and inheritance, this isn't the case these days in western society. Now, I'd like to answer this by telling a personal story. I recently got engaged, both of us come from divorced families but we spoke beforehand about marriage and what it meant to us. And really, it boiled down to making a commitment to each other and declaring that commitment to others. We didn't have to get married, we chose to. This isn't like 50 or even 30 years ago, people don't have to get married these days to have kids or a convenient supply of sex, but they still do. There is no real stigma these days with in married cohabitation or with illegitimacy, both of which were valid reasons for marriage in the past.

I don't think it's worth it asking why people get married, but why do they still get married (and why do they want to) when they don't have to?

 

Aside from the sentiment there are still certain rights attached to marriage that you can't get by just legal cohabitation (I'm thinking widow's pension, for example, certain inheritance rights as well as - in the case of children - rights when a separation goes into effect). At least, that's how it is over here. Not sure how that works over there. The gap has been narrowing though, as recent studies showed that (over here) it's now financially a better move for (young) couples to sign a cohabitation agreement, than it is to get married.

EDIT: Personally, living in sin & legal cohabitation and all that. Not sure how I feel about a possible marriage at this point. And yes, we did sign that contract for certain legal rights it gave us.

 

We (and you Pelly) have a choice, not everyone has that as its taken away from them. I need look no further than the woman who will be the Best Man, she wants to marry her partner, but can't.

 

Well, technically, since I live in a country which has legal gay marriage and adoption (and a gay Prime Minister ) I'd have the same choices if I were gay too. I was just answering your question though, as to what would constitute reasons (aside from the obvious sentimental one) to get married.

EDIT:

By the way, I just realized I addressed JS as J-Rod in my reply to him, my bad.

 

This is absurd, Smuggler, and you know it. Please show me any legal document to back up your claim that marriage is directly linked to the procreation of children, and then maybe we can debate this, but until then it's simply irrelevant to the discussion.

Any definition of "traditional marriage" and how gay marriage will ruin it is "pious baloney" to me at this point. Marriage used to mean selling your daughter in exchange for a fee, and until forty years ago didn't necessarily include people of different races.

With the Prop 8 ruling, it looks like this will go to the Supreme Court. And I'm confident that Anthony Kennedy will rule the correct way.

 

Marriage really legitimised the creation of children. The church really gave them permission to screw like rabbits as long it was with each other, in theory at least. I won't go into the mucky teritory of recognised infidelity.

 

Is it? Marriage involves promises of fidelity - forsaking all others. Now granted, not everyone holds to those vows, but in EVERY CASE for a gay couple seeking a biological child from one of the individuals in the relationship, they HAVE to go outside the marriage.

In fact, there are numerous listings on craigslist of lesbians seeking sperm donors, some of which are couples DELIBERATELY bringing in a third person. Over 1,200 results.

 

You consider using a sperm donor ... infidelity? You do realize that ... uhm, it isn't actually necessary to ... do the deed ... to use a sperm donor, right?

Also, craigslist? Try entering a more vulgar version of "do my wife" on google and see how many hits that'll give you ...

 

Are you now suggesting they don't have the right to marry because they need a surrogate mother? Or that it's even cheating on your wife when there doesn't even have to be sex involved and everyone knows about it because, you know, it's the only option available? I won't even address that you used Craigslist but, like, really? And I also won't comment on that you think infidelity means they shouldn't have the right to marry. Just ask Newt Gingrich.

There is no legal obligation for a couple to procreate naturally. An infertile mother or father in a straight relationship also has this problem, so does it apply to them? Simply because a couple cannot produce offspring does not mean they are legally barred from having a marriage license, when there is no legal obligation for them to have children in the first place.

 

Can I introduce you to Senator Penny Wong? A member of the Australian Labor Party, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Energy Efficiency and Water, a Christian, a lesbian and a mother thanbks to a sperm donation and IVF.

It's also not uncommon for homosexuals to have children from previous heterozexual relationships or to find a mutual male friend who would be the father.

 

I hate it when people don't read a thread before "adding" to it. And you've added nothing. The government cannot tell anyone that they cannot get married. Everyone has the priviledge to marry.

What you are suggesting is that certain people are not allowed to get married. Right now anyone can get married. ANYONE!!!!!!!! I've never said that some people should be turned away.

Look, brother can't marry sisters, yet no one is saying you can't get married if you have siblings. No one asks you if you are gay when you get married.

 

J-Rod, that line is super-old, and it doesn't work. It ignores the real issue, and it literally doesn't work at convincing anyone.

 

J-Rod, gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states within a decade. It could happen very soon, in fact. There's just no way around it. We're not going to have a country where gay marriage is legal in some states and illegal/not recognized in others. It would be and is a legal nightmare.

It will be over soon, and no amount of denial by anyone is going to change that. It happened with interracial marriage and it will soon happen with gay marriage. That's just a fact.

 

I'm not denying that KW. But it's not the right thing to do.

 

Sure it is. It provides legal protections for homosexual relationships that are currently unavailable, provides a mechanism for stable households (including families), and, *best of all* straight people can still be straight, still get married to other straight people, etc. There is literally no meaningful downside, where meaningful is understood to mean more than one's personal opinion.

And, btw, I'm still bristling about the "it's generally accepted that heterosexual marriage is the best environment" for kids. You and I have gone round and round about that before, and I've given you publically available and peer-reviewed studies showing that there's no outcomes difference for kids with heterosexual vs. homosexual parents time and again, so I know you know what the data actually says.

EDITS: Clarity.

 

Why is supporting same-sex marriage wrong for you?

1.) Give your best to explain why, without bringing religion into it.

2.) Bring religion into it. If it's because of (a tiny number of, and possibly misinterpreted) verses in the Bible... explain why they are morally true and timeless, and many others (like those referenced in this video) aren't morally true and timeless.

 

As Quixotic-Sith said, what's the downside? A man can still marry a woman and vice versa, even if a man can marry a man and a woman marry a woman.

Gay marriage, in and of itself, does not TAKE away anything from a heterosexual married couple.

I'd really like someone to explain how traditional married couples suffer.

 

My generation and most likely ones to follow mine feel otherwise. I'm certain that previous generations of Americans would contain large percentages of people who felt that blacks and other minorities should not vote or have many of the rights they have today. Who is right?

 

Is this that stupid, "Anyone can get married, even homosexuals, but they have to get married to get the opposite sex lol!!!!11" type argument? Because if it is then that's still one of the most ridiculous arguments ever, and you should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that's a valid argument against same sex marriage.

[image=http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/7219/42433310151248738690109.jpg]

Traditional marriages rock. Well, if you're a man.

 

1) Where to begin? First off, there is no compelling reason for the government recognize each and every elective relationship. But here, in this country, we ask "Why?" when the government thinks about doing something. Not "Why not?" A man and a woman make babies. The accepted best environment (sorry guys, it just is) for rearing children with the best chance for success is to conceive that child within the confines of a marriage. So marriage between a man and a woman is recogniszed. To encourage the conception of the next generation with the best chance for success. Has that changed? Has marriage been abused? For the purposes of this arguement, it doesn't matter.

Look, it's a handy concept. My sister and I raised her twins together for over a year after she was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Should we have been able to get married to make that job easier? No. that's rediculous.

Live how you want. Really, it's fine. But as a society, we don't owe anything to same sex couplings. Will they be able to procreate later on a science progresses? Don't know. And until it happens, I don't care. Go forth and live your life.

2)I've read the Bible cover to cover twice. In context it's pretty specific about the sin of homosexuality. But that has no bearing on my opinion as far as law goes. Gambling is a sin but I think it should be legal.

 

Marriage is not about making babies. People can make even more babies by not honoring marriage, you know. (I made a long post above that challenged you on this, just a few days ago, if you really think this is an argument). There's also the infertility/old people aspect of this argument. So Marriage is not for Procreation, that's not an argument.

Then you argue that Marriage is the best environment for children, which is a slightly different argument. There are numerous studies to show that same-sex couples are just as good parents as opposite-sex couples. And if marriage is truly better, then why not let them get married, for the sake of the kids they're raising? Is this really your only argument?




EDIT:

Some links



1. Same-sex couples can be effective parents, researchers find
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm

2. Are Same-Sex Couples Better Parents?
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/are-same-sex-couples-better-parents/

3. Kids Of Same-Sex Parents Do Fine (Between one million and six million children in the U.S. are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples)
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500368_162-938234.html

4. Number Of Gay Couples Adopting Has Skyrocketed In Past Decade (About 21,740 same sex couples had an adopted child in 2009 ... About 32,571 adopted children were living with same sex couples in 2009)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21/adoptions-spiked-among-gay-couples_n_1023885.html

5. Adoptions by Gay Couples Rise, Despite Barriers
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/us/14adoption.html?pagewanted=all

6. Census 2010: One-Quarter of Gay Couples Raising Children
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/sex-couples-census-data-trickles-quarter-raising-children/story?id=13850332

7. The YouTube video I linked to earlier, of Zach Wahls speaking of being raised by two women, to the Iowa legislature
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ

 

I believe the statistics showed that kids were best raised in a loving, supportive environment and such was easier to obtain with two parents, although even a single parent with another close friend "acting" as a kind of parent was found to be effective as well.

Wasn't it the shared burden of child-rearing as opposed to the gender of the parents the main factor?