Actually, procreation has everything to do with marriage. Youve simply convinced yourself otherwise. There is no "problem" with me marrying my dog. Thats not an arguement for the government to begin licensing such relationships.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Prove my homosexuality harms you or your family
- Thread starter Segep
- Start date
Actually, procreation has everything to do with marriage. Youve simply convinced yourself otherwise. There is no "problem" with me marrying my dog. Thats not an arguement for the government to begin licensing such relationships.
Werbung:
Why do people always drag up the issue of marrying their animals? I actually think you have convinced yourself that marriage involves creation of new life.
Marriage, to me, is between two humans, because a man is supposed to have equal rights to a woman, and to my knowledge a dog is not meant to have equal rights to a human. Thus, it is only fair that a man and man or woman and woman can do the same as a man and a woman.
And so, if procreation is the basis for marriage, according to your logic, infertile couples have no right to marriage.
You cannot find a problem with gay marriage, its just you think that you can get one up on gays if you can marry and they cant.
Marriage, to me, is between two humans, because a man is supposed to have equal rights to a woman, and to my knowledge a dog is not meant to have equal rights to a human. Thus, it is only fair that a man and man or woman and woman can do the same as a man and a woman.
And so, if procreation is the basis for marriage, according to your logic, infertile couples have no right to marriage.
You cannot find a problem with gay marriage, its just you think that you can get one up on gays if you can marry and they cant.
Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with having kids. It is the purpose of the institution itself. Without procreation their would be no need for government licensing and regulation. And nobody is banning anybody from getting married. The government only licenses and regualtes heterosexual marriages.
I wouldnt have any opposition to not licensing marriages of infertile couples.
Although application of this restriction would likely be cumbersome and cost prohibitive. Probably discourage couples from getting married thus defeating the purpose of the laws. Given a choice I would advocate the more convienient method of offering licenses to all heterosexual couples. Encouraging them to marry because they could procreate.
LOLOL!! Face it, you have no arguement.
vyo476
Well-Known Member
How did you arrive at this? Adultery laws exist because husband and wife have legally pledged themselves to each other and violation of that contract is dishonest. Are you contending that adultery laws exist to make sure that all children borne by a married woman are biologically related to her husband?
In an ironic side note, your scenario is actually how the ancient Brits did it. Wives were shared amongst many men, but all children were considered to be the child of the husband.
Incest has been taboo a lot longer than we've understood how it affects breeding. The ancient Romans had taboos against incestual relationships - I suppose that was on basis of the fact that they understood that such relationships would limit the gene pool?
So sex is a requirement of marriage?
vyo476
Well-Known Member
The institution of marriage, the cultural tradition, the religious institution and the legal, are ALL because of procreation. Government isnt involved in the first place because two people LUUUV each other, or because two people are stimulating each others genitals. Government is involved BECAUSE a hetero sexual couple stimulating each others genitals frequently creates a new life.
????? I think maybe YOU are feeling one down on heterosexual couples because while they are considered by society as a whole to be at the very foundation of that society, endorsed by God and country, recognized by culture and the media for their worthy role in the continuation of the species, you are sometimes considered to just be a bunch a pervs gettin their rocks off, with as much benefit to society as me and my relationship with my left hand.
Like I said many times, other than helping gays feel a little better about themselves, I cant imagine what purpose the government would have in licensing and regulating such relationships.
vyo476
Well-Known Member
Gee, I'm so glad my heterosexuality puts me at the foundation of a violent, hypocritical society.
What would an atheist care about being "endorsed by God"?
They're also recognized for breeding too much and creating a surplus of children who aren't cared for. Way to go, breeding heterosexuals!
Pervs gettin' their rocks off or legitimate citizens who are finally, after centuries of persecution, allowed to exist in a state that is natural for them? I think you know where I stand.
As for you and your left hand...well, I'm sure you're very happy together.
And we've provided those reasons. If marriage is meant to encourage biological parents to raise their children, can't marriage be extended to encourage that those children are raised, period?
Probably no more illuminating than all the other times Ive addressed the same arguements.
Just the first one.
1. Gays & lesbians make poor parents.
Ive never claimed any such thing. Weve been over this. Children who are raised by their biological parents do better than children who are not. Show me a study that says children raised by same sex couples do better than children who are not, and THEN you would have an arguement. Otherwise, your arguements would apply to ANY two people who might decide to raise a child. Why do we want to promote the raising of children by homosexual couples when there is no evidence whatsoever that there would be any advantage in doing so....you know, other than helping gays to feel a little better about themselves?
vyo476
Well-Known Member
You've created a Straw Man. I never said children raised by same sex couples do better than children who are not. Perhaps you should have looked at number two on the site, "Children should be raised by their biological parents."
???? Who said anything about adultery laws? Husbands are presumed to be the biological father of their wives children because it is likely that they are. If a lesbian gets pregnant it wouldnt make much sense to presume her gay lover is the biological parent because not only is it not likely, it is impossible.
What? You can have kids outside of marriage, and have no kids inside of marriage. Thus proving that not everybody regards marriage as the right to have kids.
You do understand I'm straight, not gay? Your stereotypical view of gay and straight people roles in society as perverts and good citizens respectivley just shows your pathetic view on the subject.
Yeah, maybe it is to make gays 'feel a little better', in a deeper sense than the way you put your sarcastic spin on it. It makes them feel equal, appreciated in society and that their relationship is complete and official.
You have still failed to show one single downside to society as a whole that gay marriage would bring that makes it worthy of not being legalized.
vyo476
Well-Known Member
You've gotten so wrapped up in promoting biological parentage that it's coloring every single point you make. The world's just that simple to you, isn't it?
All right. Let's go down the list.
First - No, two homosexuals cannot be the biological parents of a child. That doesn't mean they can't be the parents of a child. We have as much business encouraging adoption as we do encouraging the raising of a child by its biological parents.
Second - Yes, it is possible for at least one homosexual to be the biological parent of its child. Just ask Segep. Take a look at societal stats - there's a scary number of children being raised by only one parent these days. Many of them choose not to remarry; homosexuals do not have that choice.
Third - I thought you were bringing up adultery. Making sense of the post that I was responding to when I brought it up was rather difficult. Perhaps you can clarify what you meant by:
I was responding about adultery laws because, as I see it, a husband is presumed by law to be the biological father of any children his wife bears because if it were otherwise, she would have committed adultery.
I never claimed you did. I said-
You have no arguement. That's why your running to a straw man.
Why dont you simply address my points you are responding to instead of the same old tired arguements.
AND just what makes you think two queers should recieve special treatment above any other two people who might raise a child? Children raised by biological parents do better than those who are not. Thus the promotion of that relationship. If you could show me evidence that children raised by gay couples do better than those who are not, LIKE with biological parents, then you would have an arguement. Two gays are no more beneficial to raising kids than ANY two people who might raise a child. And yet you want special treatment for NO REASON whatsoever. Government laws need to serve some purpose, have some rational relation to that purpose.
Werbung:
I made no statements as to how anybody regards marriage, let alone "everybody". But of course, thats why you go there.
