10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong

[PLC1]

If a lesbian woman comes up pregnant you can be assured someone other than her lesbian lover is the father.

Most likely, a sperm donor that they decided to use in order to start a family the only way possible. So?

 

[jb_1430]

Most likely, a sperm donor that they decided to use in order to start a family the only way possible. So?

Or, some guy she banged when drifting to the other side for a taste.

 

[jb_1430]

Gays should have the same rights as straights.

???? why is that? Encouraging Men and women to raise their own children is a valid purpose. Cant imagine any purpose whatsoever in regulating and licensing gays.

 

[PLC1]

???? why is that? Encouraging Men and women to raise their own children is a valid purpose. Cant imagine any purpose whatsoever in regulating and licensing gays.

When you diminish the rights of one segment of the population, you diminish the rights of everyone. That's why gays and straights should have the same rights. To diminish someone because of their sexual orientation is no different from diminishing someone because of his race, religion, or ethnicity.

 

[jb_1430]

When you diminish the rights of one segment of the population, you diminish the rights of everyone. That's why gays and straights should have the same rights. To diminish someone because of their sexual orientation is no different from diminishing someone because of his race, religion, or ethnicity.

Nobody is diminishing anyone. But I understand you feel that way. Thats what this is all about anyway. Wanting to feel a little bit less diminished and believing a government endorsement of your relationship will make you feel less diminished

 

[PLC1]

Nobody is diminishing anyone. But I understand you feel that way. Thats what this is all about anyway. Wanting to feel a little bit less diminished and believing a government endorsement of your relationship will make you feel less diminished

Government endorsement would give gays the same rights as straights. It isn't a matter of how they feel. It is a matter of having the same rights as the rest of us.

 

[AlicornsPrayer]

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.

Ahhh, I'm talking about where the husband knows up front that the child isn't biologically his, but that him and his wife have a planned pregnancy, where they will raise the child as his none-the-less...

It's called SPERM DONOR/ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION...


And here you are going off about illegitimacy and paternety testing? What were you talking about...

Ohhhh, you thought I was referring to cheating spouses...You were wrong.

 

[AlicornsPrayer]

Most likely, a sperm donor that they decided to use in order to start a family the only way possible. So?

They'd be using the same methods that hetrosexuals who have infertility issues but want children, do every day in the US. Surigacy, adoption, donors, etc...

 

[numinus]

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.

Correct. It is a problem of semantics. Unfortunately, the language of the law is PRECISE - hence the need to be PRECISE.

There ARE NO RIGHTS to be had in marriage other than those that derive from the RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD, RIGHTS OF CHILDREN, AND FAMILY RELATIONS. The rest of the alleged rights may be had simply through any lawyer and a healthy amount of foresight.

 

[PLC1]

Correct. It is a problem of semantics. Unfortunately, the language of the law is PRECISE - hence the need to be PRECISE.

There ARE NO RIGHTS to be had in marriage other than those that derive from the RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD, RIGHTS OF CHILDREN, AND FAMILY RELATIONS. The rest of the alleged rights may be had simply through any lawyer and a healthy amount of foresight.

Well, if you put it in all caps and bold it, it must be true, right?

 

[numinus]

Let's take some time to summarize the arguments that have been made:

1. Marriage is exclusively for the purpose of procreation.

Wrong.

It is about motherhood (which includes the female genders procreative potential), the rights of children and family relations.

You should stop summarizing others' arguments if you can't do a satisfactory job of it.

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.

Which makes this counter argument entirely irrelevant since you have NEVER addressed the RIGHTS OF CHILDREN. They have rights too, you know. The fact that they are among the weakest members of society all the more justifies government protection in regards to laws and institutions.

Niminus counters with this quote:

Where does it say "heterosexual men and women?

It says 'without limitation due to race, nationality and religion...'. If homosexual marriages were contemplated at all in the declaration, it would have been a simple matter to include 'gender', no?

Yes, that's so. It doesn't support the counter argument, but it is true.

The word NATURAL says tons about this article. Under no circumstance can a homosexual union be mistaken for a natural union.

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.

Again, you missed the word WIDOWHOOD - which recognizes the financial aspect of marriage. It assumes the responsibility of the mother lies within the home, as is her right.

Which supports my contention all along - that the right to motherhood, to have any meaning, requires some sort of financial support.

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?

It says that a union that does not result in children does not need any legal apparatus since it is merely an agreement between two consenting adults, just like any contract.

A union that potentially results in children would naturally involve another human being that have absolutely NO SAY INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCE HE/SHE WAS BORN IN - hence the necessity for a legal apparatus - 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.

But the child cannot be concieved WITHIN the union. Enter the right of the child to grow up with his natural parents.

Capice?

Not only that, but there are heterosexual marriages that are not formed to produce children: Marriages between seniors,

The only time that the possibility of children within a union becomes absolutely null is when one of the spouses die - which effectively terminates the marriage, no?

marriages between people who don't want children,

We are talking of the possibility of children. When such a possibility manifests, regardless of what the spouses want, their responsibilities and privileges are already clear.

and marriages of women who are infertile for example.

Infertility is covered under a person's privacy. The state cannot compel anyone to divulge such a thing, nor can the intending spouse. It is enough that the dissolution of marriage is possible once the condition is known. And here I am talking of a null marriage, not merely a divorce.

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.

And how the hell can the state know for certain the intentions of the spouses, eh?

In homosexual unions, the intention is quite clear.

The logical arguments against allowing gay marriages are not tenable. The only real arguments are based on emotion and religious conviction.

It is untenable because you deliberately misrepresent the arguments being put forth.

 

[numinus]

Well, if you put it in all caps and bold it, it must be true, right?

Correct. I'm brilliant that way.

 

[PLC1]

Correct. I'm brilliant that way.

Yes, just not in being able to back up your repetitive arguments.

Like this one:

It says that a union that does not result in children does not need any legal apparatus since it is merely an agreement between two consenting adults, just like any contract.

"It" says that a union that does not result in children.... Is this it a definitive definition of marriage? Does it really say that a childless marriage is not a real marriage?

Isn't a marriage an agreement between two consenting adults anyway?

And this one:

Wrong.

It is about motherhood (which includes the female genders procreative potential), the rights of children and family relations.

You should stop summarizing others' arguments if you can't do a satisfactory job of it.

So, it is only about the mother's procreation? The father has nothing to do with it? Then, I suppose a lesbian couple would have a doubly good marriage, since there are two female genders involved, both able to procreate.

And there is this excellent example of circular reasoning:

The word NATURAL says tons about this article. Under no circumstance can a homosexual union be mistaken for a natural union.

A homosexual union is not a natural union, because homosexuality is unnatural, so a homosexual union is not natural.

That, of course, ignores the fact that god himself created homosexuals. How can you say that his creation is unnatural?

And, then, I keep reading different variations of this theme:

A union that potentially results in children would naturally involve another human being that have absolutely NO SAY INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCE HE/SHE WAS BORN IN - hence the necessity for a legal apparatus - MARRIAGE.

Therefore, a child who has been conceived by artificial insemination, or has been adopted, should have the same rights as one who is being raised by heterosexual partners, whether or not they are the biological parents of the child. Therefore, anyone should be allowed to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, in order to protect the children who had no say as to the circumstances into which he/she was born.

You are making my argument for me.

I have to give you credit for persistence. You have taken on an untenable position, one that has no fact or logic on its side, yet haven't given up.

Nor have you resorted to the "It's wrong because God says so" argument. I'll give you a lot of credit for that.

 

[Izz]

How sanctified is a marriage between a man and a woman with a divorce rate of over 40%? And what right does any person have to tell someone that they can't marry the person they love, even if that person is the same gender? Politics and religion aside, it is butting in on someone else's private affair.
The only reason a marriage is considered the union of a man and a woman is because that's how it's always been. Once a black man couldn't vote, because that's how it had always been. A woman couldn't hold a job- that was how it had always been. Why block change? Change is, after all, the only real constant of life.
I see no reason two men or two women couldn't get married. I know the children of homosexual parents and they are normal, functioning individuals with healthy social relationships and decent education.
It is true that a homosexual relationship could go just as wrong as a heterosexual relationship, but they hold together the same way. To deny a person the right to marry the one they love is indecent, practically immoral, and insulting. There is no rule in the constitution that states love is between a man and a woman only, and civil unions are already legal in several states. Trying to stop this is like trying to stop an avalanche, and whatever conservative shield you make, be it 'it is against god' or 'it is unnatural', it won't do a damn thing.

 

[jb_1430]

Ahhh, I'm talking about where the husband knows up front that the child isn't biologically his, but that him and his wife have a planned pregnancy, where they will raise the child as his none-the-less...

It's called SPERM DONOR/ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION...

And here you are going off about illegitimacy and paternety testing? What were you talking about...

Ohhhh, you thought I was referring to cheating spouses...You were wrong.

Aaaaaand in most states, if they are both married and cohabitating, the man will be presumed to be the biological father of the child. Doesnt matter if its a one night stand or artificial insemination. In many states, after the kid is two, the child is conclusively presumed to be the biological (child of the) father. Even a dna test cant rebut the presumption. And I am talking about what marriage laws are all about. Did you think marriage laws were because two people are rubbing their genitals together, and not because what can happen when a man and a woman rub their genitals together?