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.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong
- Thread starter r0beph
- Start date
Werbung:
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/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=316&invol=535
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.
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:
Where does it say "heterosexual men and women?
That should be a given, even if some cultures do have arranged marriages.
Yes, that's so. It doesn't support the counter argument, but it is true.
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.
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.
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:
Where does it say "heterosexual men and women?
That should be a given, even if some cultures do have arranged marriages.
Yes, that's so. It doesn't support the counter argument, but it is true.
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.
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.
The reasons people get married isnt the issue. The reason government licenses and regulates marriage is because of procreation.
Well now weve left the domain of reality.
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.
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.
ilikeboobs
Well-Known Member
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...
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...
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.
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.
If a lesbian woman comes up pregnant you can be assured someone other than her lesbian lover is the father.
AlicornsPrayer
Well-Known Member
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:
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.
