For People Who Think Gay Sex Is Wrong And Gives "Sex Is For Procreation" As A Reason

[Agnostic]

Imagine a hetero couple:

1) Is oral sex wrong?
2) Is protected sex wrong?
3) Is sex without thought of procreation wrong?
4) Is masturbation/foreplay wrong?

[Clete]

I'm guessing that there won't be too many people on here who actually believe that sex is just for procreation.

[purple_kathryn]

Can infertile couples have sex?

[Seeker630]

Imagine a hetero couple:

1) Is oral sex wrong?
2) Is protected sex wrong?
3) Is sex without thought of procreation wrong?
4) Is masturbation/foreplay wrong?

Are you going someplace with this? What is the point of the thread? My answer to all of the above is "No"--but you might do better actually starting a poll with these questions. Are only straight people or religious people supposed to answer?

[Agnostic]

It's actually because of all the arguments I hear about how gay sex is unnatural cos nature intended sex to be hetero to facilitate propagation of the species, almost as if we've never evolved beyond primal instincts. Sex becomes relegated to nothing more than a procreative act, stripping it of everything else that's included when it involves "higher" organisms like ourselves.

I saw a few remarks in the other gay thread approaching homophobia, and I wonder if its the sex that bothers them, or that the people having the sex are gay. Maybe my being bi colours my perception, but to me sex is sex regardless of who you're having it with. Are people in prison who do not engage in gay sex outside of it gay because they engage in it inside?

[Clete]

It's actually because of all the arguments I hear about how gay sex is unnatural cos nature intended sex to be hetero to facilitate propagation of the species, almost as if we've never evolved beyond primal instincts.
I always wonder if people who make those kinds of arguments only eat to stay alive or if ever they choose foods based on the fact that they enjoy the flavor.

[JayM]

I try not to talk to those people, as their stupidity might be contagious.

[Hooboy !!]

I fit the description of the thread title...

Imagine a hetero couple:

1) Is oral sex wrong?
2) Is protected sex wrong?
3) Is sex without thought of procreation wrong?
4) Is masturbation/foreplay wrong?
1) No.
2) No.
3) No.
4) No.

The process of procreation is not strictly a process of fertilization, but I do not follow the strict biological definition of "procreation". My definition includes gestation, birth, and then nurturing until the child is of sufficient age to sustain its own existence.

[WCH]

Maybe my being bi colours my perception, but to me sex is sex regardless of who you're having it with.Out of curiousity (slight derail), how do you define sex? I'm assuming you're male... if a man sucked you off and that's all that happened, would you say in describing it "we had sex"? How about if it was a woman? If it would be sex with the man and not with the woman, why?

[Agnostic]

The process of procreation is not strictly a process of fertilization, but I do not follow the strict biological definition of "procreation". My definition includes gestation, birth, and then nurturing until the child is of sufficient age to sustain its own existence.

I'm sorry, but how are oral sex or protected sex procreative activities? I understand you take a more holistic view of what procreation is, but doesn't the first part - gestation - require fertilisation?

What about what purple_kathryn asked - infertile couples? To have a child, they're going to go through the same channels gay couples go though to have one - adoption or surrogacy. Sex to them is useless in terms of procreation.

[loprogression]

For People Who Think Gay Sex Is Wrong And Gives "Sex Is For Procreation" As A Reason

This is no different than most pro-religious arguments. Its not a logical argument and really makes no damn sense.

That's all there is to it.

If people think this argument is sound, they will likely hold dozens of other illogical assumptions. So, really, who cares? They are going to need to learn a substantial amount on the topic of logic before they can shed their illogical beliefs anyway.

[Agnostic]

Out of curiousity (slight derail), how do you define sex? I'm assuming you're male... if a man sucked you off and that's all that happened, would you say in describing it "we had sex"? How about if it was a woman? If it would be sex with the man and not with the woman, why?

If it was reciprocative, or if we were in a relationship, I'd say that. Otherwise, I'd just say he/she sucked me off.

[Hooboy !!]

I'm sorry, but how are oral sex or protected sex procreative activities? I understand you take a more holistic view of what procreation is, but doesn't the first part - gestation - require fertilisation?

What about what purple_kathryn asked - infertile couples? To have a child, they're going to go through the same channels gay couples go though to have one - adoption or surrogacy. Sex to them is useless in terms of procreation.
I am not interested in an argument on this subject.

I will say this...

Sex is not only a function of fertilization. It is also a function of interpersonal bonding. Raising and caring for a child is much easier to do as a couple than it is as an individual. If oral sex works to preserve the bond and reinforce interpersonal relationships, then oral sex is indeed working towards the objective of procreation.

As far as infertile or homosexual partnerships go... these are perfectly normal, but futile attempts at procreation. Think of it like an ostrich flapping its wings. No matter how hard it simulates flying... it will never get off the ground.

[Mav]

Lets take a look at that "Sex Is For Procreation" reason. The Great Lord all Mighty Pink Unicorn makes 3 new worlds just like Earth. On one he puts only men, the other...only women...and the last he puts men & women. Having no contact with the other planets, all 3 planets live in peace. 150 years later, who is left?

While you may not like it, this is part of the equation. However, when we take a look at the worlds population and it's rate of growth....this may just be Mother Natures way of enforcing some population control.

[Underseer]

More importantly, shouldn't we annul marriages every time a woman goes through menopause? I mean, if a marriage that can't produce children is wrong, shouldn't all marriages that can't produce children be wrong? Where are the laws making it illegal for sterile people to get or remain married?

[show_no_mercy]

Out of curiousity (slight derail), how do you define sex? I'm assuming you're male... if a man sucked you off and that's all that happened, would you say in describing it "we had sex"? How about if it was a woman? If it would be sex with the man and not with the woman, why?

http://www.jacneed.com/PhotoFile/Bill_Clinton.jpg

[Clete]

More importantly, shouldn't we annul marriages every time a woman goes through menopause?
Yes, damn those grandmas to H E double hockey sticks!

[Mav]

http://www.jacneed.com/PhotoFile/Bill_Clinton.jpg

:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

[Agnostic]

Sex is not only a function of fertilization. It is also a function of interpersonal bonding. Raising and caring for a child is much easier to do as a couple than it is as an individual. If oral sex works to preserve the bond and reinforce interpersonal relationships, then oral sex is indeed working towards the objective of procreation.

As far as infertile or homosexual partnerships go... these are perfectly normal, but futile attempts at procreation. Think of it like an ostrich flapping its wings. No matter how hard it simulates flying... it will never get off the ground.

Well, if you think infertile and homosexual relationships are normal, and that sex is a function of interpersonal bonding, then how is gay sex wrong (or "wronger" than sex between sterile or infertile-by-choice couples) within the context of reinforcing interpersonal relationships for the purpose of raising and caring for a child?

The ostrich flapping its wings might be an exercise in futility with regards to flying, but it doesn't make the ostrich wrong (futile maybe, but wrong?) to flap its wings, and flapping its wings achieves other purposes other than flying anyway.

Lets take a look at that "Sex Is For Procreation" reason. The Great Lord all Mighty Pink Unicorn makes 3 new worlds just like Earth. On one he puts only men, the other...only women...and the last he puts men & women. Having no contact with the other planets, all 3 planets live in peace. 150 years later, who is left?

While you may not like it, this is part of the equation. However, when we take a look at the worlds population and it's rate of growth....this may just be Mother Natures way of enforcing some population control.

I agree with you - nature comes up with many schemes for population control - disease, homosexuality, climate changes - but it seems we humans are getting more adept at circumventing all that.

[phrog]

I have met those that answer yes to all four questions and to those people I say: "Fuck 'em"

[Agnostic]

I have met those that answer yes to all four questions and to those people I say: "Fuck 'em"

They must all be men if they think foreplay is wrong.:D

[His Noodly Appendage]

Let's not forget pregnant women. You can't get them any pregnanter than they already are, no matter how hard you try.

[orac]

Many theists answer "yes" to those questions. Some even agree that marriage when either or both partners are infertile is wrong. I assume they believe that after menopause, sex ceases to be moral, although I assume they support sexless marriage because they're sure that children need two married parents.

I have no idea what can be done with some people. I'ld suggest a good non-sexual spanking, but their fear of anything pleasurable suggests they may enjoy it too much, and we can't have that. ;)


I always wonder if people who make those kinds of arguments only eat to stay alive or if ever they choose foods based on the fact that they enjoy the flavor.
Well, despite how "natural" it may be, you'ld be amazed at how difficult it is to get them to live in caves, hunt and gather their own food, and avoid all those unnatural camping accessories such as stretchers and matches and synthetic thermal underwear in winter. ;) Apparantly something that feels good is "unnatural" and thus wrong, but comfortable modern amenities are perfectly "natural" even when made with chemicals you can't get outside of a laboratory.

[Persidian]

Imagine a hetero couple:

1) Is oral sex wrong?
2) Is protected sex wrong?
3) Is sex without thought of procreation wrong?
4) Is masturbation/foreplay wrong?
When I was in Catholic school, I was indeed taught that all of these things were wrong for a married couple (except perhaps foreplay, but no kinky stuff m'kay?). Sex without the possibility of impregnation was always immoral; getting married if you weren't planning to have kids was simply wrong. The only possible exception was natural sterility if it either occurred after you'd taken the vows or you didn't know about it at the time.

Interestingly though, they didn't go into much detail about what was wrong with homosexuality other than the obvious lack of childbearing ability. I got the distinct impression that they didn't want to discuss the unsavory Bible verses condemning it. But then again, they really didn't give much Biblical justification for their sexual opinions at all, referring more to the papal decision that all birth control was immoral. And blowjobs count as birth control. :p

[His Noodly Appendage]

I still want to hear from someone in that mindset about sex while pregnant.

[Queen of Swords]

I still want to hear from someone in that mindset about sex while pregnant.

Someone in that mindset might feel that a pregnant woman was to be protected and cared for, not screwed. The brain-switch goes from "on" to "off" the moment the sex has fulfilled its god-given function and impregnated the female.

[Mav]

It's all about instinct, need, and stress that fuels the drive. Then personal choice after that.
Insert Laws of Religion into it and you have mess.
Insert Laws of Nature which give a more logical base to judge from.
Insert Laws of Human Morals and your spinning your wheels in the sand.


Just for you His Noodly Appendage. Sex while pregnant:
May be view as a couples physical expression revealing their inner feeling towards each other and the joy they both are feeling over their creation. Coupled with it being a form of stress relief for both.

Or, they have always wanted to have a 3-some.

[Hooboy !!]

then how is gay sex wrong (or "wronger" than sex between sterile or infertile-by-choice couples) within the context of reinforcing interpersonal relationships for the purpose of raising and caring for a child?
I do not think it is "wrong". I think it is futile. My only issue with homosexual couples is with marriage. I do not think there is any social benefit to sanctioning homosexual marriages, or least not enough to alter the status quo.

[Abacus]

You mean there is no benefit to you.

[Hooboy !!]

You mean there is no benefit to you.
Or the majority.

[Jennie]

I do not think it is "wrong". I think it is futile. My only issue with homosexual couples is with marriage. I do not think there is any social benefit to sanctioning homosexual marriages, or least not enough to alter the status quo.

I think there are lots of social benefits from sanctioning gay marriage. The most immediate is to satisfy a sense of fairness, that all people in the society are valued. The second would be acceptance, suicide amoung gay teens is higher than among straight teens; if they felt more normal (as much as teens can) that should go down. The third would be the increased stability that the children of homosexual parents would have, even if their parents separated they'd have the same protections that exist for children of heterosexual parents. The fourth would be to support and nurture the union of two people, society is more stable and healthier when the people in it are stable and healthy, which is more likely in a long-term relationship, especially as they get older and need caregiving.

Given that I see no downsides whatsoever in allowing gay marriage, I am all for it. To the point where I'm going to vote for one of our state's supreme court justices simply because she voted to allow it. She didn't win, but that's not relevant.

[Pendaric]

<MD to MF&P>

[purple_kathryn]

I do not think it is "wrong". I think it is futile. My only issue with homosexual couples is with marriage. I do not think there is any social benefit to sanctioning homosexual marriages, or least not enough to alter the status quo.

Or infertile heterosexual couples either presumably

[Agnostic]

I do not think it is "wrong". I think it is futile. My only issue with homosexual couples is with marriage. I do not think there is any social benefit to sanctioning homosexual marriages, or least not enough to alter the status quo.

What purple_kathryn said.

What, in your mind, constitutes a "social benefit"? And isn't the pursuit to happiness a (American) human right? Isn't having happy, fulfilled people who do no harm (defined within reason of course) to others a benefit to society? Lots of things have no "social benefits" to the majority of the population, but it's the culmination of the all these "minor" social benefits that make it a major one.

[Hooboy !!]

What, in your mind, constitutes a "social benefit"?
Produce children.

And isn't the pursuit to happiness a (American) human right?
No one is stopping them from being happy.

[Dlx2]

Sex exists for the sole purpose of procreation. One should not enjoy sex.

Eating exists for the sole purpose of nutrition. One should never eat cakes or other things that taste good because it is an abomination and goes against nature.

Drinking exists for the sole purpose of hydration. Soda, cocktails, beer, coffee, tea, etc are all abominations.

Vision exists solely for the purpose of navigation and predator avoidance. Aesthetics is thus an abomination.

Oh wait...

[Mav]

The infertile heterosexual couples have a medical factor that can be found. If both male and female of this union did not have a medical factor present, then production of offspring is possible from this union.

If homosexual couples could produce a medical reason as to why they can't have offspring, then marriage for homosexual couples would be viewed in a different light. However, taking all health gay couples that are out there at present...the production of offspring between the couple is impossible without the help of a third party.

If any couple seeking marrage were in full health and could produce offspring between the two, then they qualify for marriage.

Having found no medical defecting factors in this homosexual couple, then it is their choice to live this type of life style. The Achilles Heal in their argument to justify marriage for this union combo is: The same argument can also be used to justify the marriage between a human and a dog, sheep, goat, etc. This union can also produce offspring with the help of a third party.

infertile heterosexual couples: To weak of an example to be used or considered.

[CelticChic]

What exactly does marriage ( the legal contractual binding of two people ) have to do with procreation? Since in our legal system one need not be married in order to procreate or provide a child with parental benefits anyhow, it appears to be a convenience. One that we deny homosexual couples (or in the past interracial couples as defined by the majority). Why then should the legal benefits derived from the contract be denied any two people who wish to bind themselves as such?

Personally I would do away with "marriage" and leave it up to contract law (perhaps set up a standard contract). There is no reason the gov't needs to poke it's nose in our bedrooms to determine if we're having sex with the right people or making babies.

[seebs]

Mav, the infertile couples argument only shows that fertility is not necessary; it does not show that infertility is sufficient.

I do not believe that marriage is about procreation, and I think the whole thing about medical conditions is a pointless dodge. A woman who's had a hysterectomy is going to have just as many kids no matter who or what she marries.

[Trout]

When I was in Catholic school, I was indeed taught that all of these things were wrong for a married couple (except perhaps foreplay, but no kinky stuff m'kay?). .

Shite....oral sex is considered kinky? That's..............I have no words...

And blowjobs count as birth control.

Ahhh, there we go....

[Trout]

I do not think it is "wrong". I think it is futile. My only issue with homosexual couples is with marriage. I do not think there is any social benefit to sanctioning homosexual marriages, or least not enough to alter the status quo.


I've got one for you. All moral arguments aside for a moment, homosexual marriages have no impact on me if they are legal or not because the same effect is in play regardless. It would be a distinct advantage to me however, if the issue was off the forking table and politicians, etc could go back to deciding on things that actually matter! Hell, maybe they could balance a budget or two and the religious "leaders" out there would get less airplay.

That alone does it for me and I think LT affects of it would be pretty much negligible. How many couples have you known that stayed together for the kids sort of thing? Gays won't obviously so if they're smart, the whole marriage deal will probably be just attractive to a small percentage anyway but the rest of us can get back to the table on real issues and let who wants to poke who in the orifice be an issue I don't have to discuss.

[Griff]

Egads. If young lovers were required to decide to have kids before going through the act of sexual intercourse, we'd be nearly extinct in a generation. Even the more stable couples are transfixed mostly on each other for the first several months of their relationship, as they should be. Courtship is important because it builds the bonds necessary to keep a couple together during child-rearing, whether they produce their own or adopt. Sex is also important to building these marital bonds, particularly in women but also to some extent in men. The people who use the "sex for procreation" argument have it upside down. Sex drives procreation, not the converse. Once again, the conservatives have everything backwards. Hit them really really hard.

[dmarker]

The infertile heterosexual couples have a medical factor that can be found. If both male and female of this union did not have a medical factor present, then production of offspring is possible from this union.

If homosexual couples could produce a medical reason as to why they can't have offspring, then marriage for homosexual couples would be viewed in a different light. However, taking all health gay couples that are out there at present...the production of offspring between the couple is impossible without the help of a third party.

If any couple seeking marrage were in full health and could produce offspring between the two, then they qualify for marriage.

Having found no medical defecting factors in this homosexual couple, then it is their choice to live this type of life style. The Achilles Heal in their argument to justify marriage for this union combo is: The same argument can also be used to justify the marriage between a human and a dog, sheep, goat, etc. This union can also produce offspring with the help of a third party.

infertile heterosexual couples: To weak of an example to be used or considered.

So does that mean that a woman who has had a ovi-hysterectemy cannot marry? That's when they remove both ovaries and uterus so no amount of fertility treatments will work.

[TomboyMom]

Or the majority.
And screw those poor people who happen to be in the minority, who cares about them anyway?

[TomboyMom]

Hooboy:
What we are arguing is that you are being inconsistent.

Gay sex is wrong because it is not procreative, and non-procreative sex is wrong.
Oral sex, sex between infertile couples, pregnant sex is not procreative.
These kinds of sex are not wrong.
Therefore it must not be the case that non-procreative sex is wrong.

[TomboyMom]

OP, I've had these arguments a bunch of times. What happens is that the Christian hypocrite who is trying to argue that non-procreative sex is wrong, when his real problem is that he thinks his religion prohibits it and anyway it's yucky, unless it's women in which case it's hot, comes up with some magical phrase, often cadged from Catholic websites, that means something like "in the ballpark." Then they say that sex is O.K. only if it's actually procreative, or in the ballpark of procreative sex, as in it involves a man and a woman. So for example sex between seniors is O.K., because it's in the ball park, even though there is neither the possibility nor the intent of reproducing.

For example, they'll say that to be ethical, the sex has to be "open to conception," or "between people that could possibly procreate under normal circumstances" or something like that.

[Jennie]

I'd also like to point out that infertile couples are not a small minority of people, and will only continue to grow as our population ages.

[Mav]

Mav, the infertile couples argument only shows that fertility is not necessary; it does not show that infertility is sufficient.

Seebs, my point was that those using the infertile couples example of couples that can't have kids that are male and female can get married so why can't those of the same sex do the same. I think the example is to weak. Those against gay marriage can shoot it down far to easy.

I do not believe that marriage is about procreation, and I think the whole thing about medical conditions is a pointless dodge.

Marriage was about procreation...but now with the population so great, I have to agree that it is not based mainly on procreation any more.

A woman who's had a hysterectomy is going to have just as many kids no matter who or what she marries.

A women can have kids, depending on what type of hysterectomy she has preformed. As for the no matter who she marries part....needs to be a male or a third party member. As for the what she marries.....that may be food for another thread there.:blush:

[Griff]

If homosexual couples could produce a medical reason as to why they can't have offspring, then marriage for homosexual couples would be viewed in a different light.Sure. We're two guys, and it's impossible for two guys to reproduce. My partner and I would like to adopt. Seperating would cause us great psychological distress, and neither of us would be able to establish or maintain a healthy heterosexual relationship. That should be medical reason enough.

Having found no medical defecting factors in this homosexual couple, then it is their choice to live this type of life style.Our sexual orientation makes it unlikely that we could establish or maintain a heterosexual relationship of any health or quality. Also, the relationship between my partner and myself is already too strongly established to uproot without jeapordizing our psychological health.

The Achilles Heal in their argument to justify marriage for this union combo is: The same argument can also be used to justify the marriage between a human and a dog, sheep, goat, etc. This union can also produce offspring with the help of a third party.My partner and I are of the same species. Also, we resent being compared to bestialitists, and we request that you retract this insult and apologize.

Your argument is toothless, anyway, because you could say the same of infertile couples or couples who have no intention of reproducing. Also, you could say the same of couples who choose to render themselves infertile, such as men who get themselves visectomied shortly before or shortly after marriage.

Tell me, Mav: what's it like to be completely pwned? I've never quite experienced it.

[Dlx2]

A women can have kids, depending on what type of hysterectomy she has preformed. As for the no matter who she marries part....needs to be a male or a third party member. As for the what she marries.....that may be food for another thread there.:blush:

If a man and woman need a surrogate mother, then all three are needed in order to reproduce. Thus, it should be just as acceptable for the woman to marry the surrogate as the man, because she couldn't reproduce without the help of either. Then, we can expand this to say that, since some married hetero couples don't have kids and that's okay, then it's okay for the woman and her potential surrogate to marry even though they have no intent of ever having kids.

Then, we can claim that any woman could need a hysterectomy at some point or another, so it's possible that any woman could be in that position, so that could hardly be wrong either. And since it's more humane to not do an invasive procedure than to do an invasive procedure when the option is availible, we can claim that it's thus better for a woman to marry another woman without getting that hysterectomy. So, two women can most certainly marry.

And if two women are going to marry, there's no reason to stop two men from marrying, considering that two men could potentially have a kid (eventually, given sufficient research in methylation and cloning) that genetically belongs to both of them so long as they have a surrogate mother to bring the embryo to term. If this is the case, then there's no reason they can't marry, either.

Procreation is hardly a block to gay marriage, thanks to technology.

[Jennie]

Not to mention that lots of people have kids with one person, then raise them with another, and sexuality seems to have little to do with this.

[Agnostic]

Produce children.

That's because you live in a developed nation where the fertility rate is below what is sustainable (2.1). If you live in an impoverished country where the fertility rates swamp the health and economic infrastructure, you wouldn't think of child production as a social benefit but liability. And in any case, you don't disapprove of any other heterosexual union which does not or does not intend to produce children.

It's actually quite easy, come to think of it, to require the production of a child before issuing a marriage certificate, if that's what's marriage is all about. I've always viewed marriage as nothing more than tax-break. The Aussies do well to recognise "de facto" marriages, with most (or all) of the benefits of a registered marriage.

No one is stopping them from being happy.

Actually, people are when they refuse them what they want to be happy when it doesn't harm others.

The same argument can also be used to justify the marriage between a human and a dog, sheep, goat, etc. This union can also produce offspring with the help of a third party.


But first they must have found some way to get informed consent from the dog, sheep, goat, etc.

And it's less "medical" than "biological". Psychology is as much a part of medicine.

[Mav]

Tell me, Mav: what's it like to be completely pwned? I've never quite experienced it.

I don't know, I'll PM ya when it happens.;)
You may have let your emotions get the best of ya there friend. In simple: I'm saying that gay couples comparing themselves to infertile straight couples is a bad comparison. Those blocking gay marriage can simply say that if both compared couples (gay and straight) were in 100% health without any medical problems...which could produce offspring? Simple as that.
The straight couples that choose not to have offspring, had the capability at one point.
I'll give ya that a straight couple may be infertile prior to marriage, this might be a loop hole, if marriage was based only on the production of offspring. While it works for straight couples,......but marriage is not based on the production of offspring alone. (but this thread is)

No matter how many twists you put on it, they are always going to be able to defend and counter in this area of the negotiations. It is going to be allowed in time, but I don't feel it will change much once it happens.

It does not bother me one way or the other if same sex marriages are allow to get married in the eyes of god, government, Allah , Buddha, Ra, etc. I think it's all about getting tax benefits.

[Griff]

You may have let your emotions get the best of ya there friend. In simple: I'm saying that gay couples comparing themselves to infertile straight couples is a bad comparison.You're wrong, though. It's not a perfect comparison because the conditions are not identical, but the premise is valid.

Those blocking gay marriage can simply say that if both compared couples (gay and straight) were in 100% health without any medical problems...which could produce offspring? Simple as that.Neither. A person could very well be both infertile and in perfectly good health. However, a person who is gay or lesbian is not in perfect health: homosexuality is a behavioral irregularity that, no matter how common, can potentially be highly disruptive to a person's ability to lead a normal life. The nine tenths of our problems that are entirely the fault of people like yourself are taken into account.

The straight couples that choose not to have offspring, had the capability at one point.And they made a conscious and calculated choice not to. They are completely and uncontrovertibly responsible for their lifestyle choices and should be held accountable for them.

I'll give ya that a straight couple may be infertile prior to marriage, this might be a loop hole, if marriage was based only on the production of offspring.That was the premise of your argument, though. If the production of offspring isn't required for someone to have a right to marry, then you shouldn't hold the gays to a double-standard. This would be very dishonest of you. You don't want us to doubt your integrity, do you?

No matter how many twists you put on it, they are always going to be able to defend and counter in this area of the negotiations.No. Your position is indefensible and immoral. We're tired of being treated like crap.

It is going to be allowed in time, but I don't feel it will change much once it happens.Then tell us why you're opposing it. This all reeks of elitism and denigration. Tell us what's really hiding behind this shroud of excuses of yours. Tell us your real reason.

It does not bother me one way or the other if same sex marriages are allow to get married in the eyes of god, government, Allah , Buddha, Ra, etc.Then don't contest it.

I think it's all about getting tax benefits.Nobody gets married for tax benefits.

[Mav]

Griff: You're wrong, though. It's not a perfect comparison because the conditions are not identical, but the premise is valid. Am I?

Griff: Neither. A person could very well be both infertile and in perfectly good health. 100% health means everything works.

Griff: However, a person who is gay or lesbian is not in perfect health: homosexuality is a behavioral irregularity that, no matter how common, can potentially be highly disruptive to a person's ability to lead a normal life. The nine tenths of our problems that are entirely the fault of people like yourself are taken into account.
So Behavioral Irregularity is the reason. This factor would work in your favor. However it would have to be true for every couple, in order to prevent those that are not inflicted with this condition from using it to reap the benefits of being married.

Griff: The nine tenths of our problems that are entirely the fault of people like yourself are taken into account.
How did you come up with 9/10's?

Griff: And they made a conscious and calculated choice not to. They are completely and uncontrovertibly responsible for their lifestyle choices and should be held accountable for them. I agree. Same rules apply to you as well. You left out one part though: "had the capability at one point."

Griff: That was the premise of your argument, though. If the production of offspring isn't required for someone to have a right to marry, then you shouldn't hold the gays to a double-standard. This would be very dishonest of you. You don't want us to doubt your integrity, do you?
"this might be a loop hole, if marriage was based only on the production of offspring".......but it's not. The thread is.

Griff: No. Your position is indefensible and immoral. We're tired of being treated like crap. So far you persuaded me that your emotional about the topic at hand, but that about it. As far as being treated like crap, your not alone there. Everyone feels the same way at some point.

Gruff: Then tell us why you're opposing it. This all reeks of elitism and denigration. Tell us what's really hiding behind this shroud of excuses of yours. Tell us your real reason.
Am I opposing it or am I pointing out how the infertile vs. gay comparison can be countered? As for things changing for gay couples once it is allowed....I don't think it will be everything they are hoping for.

Griff: Nobody gets married for tax benefits.
Ever heard of the term; Marriage of Convenience? You know that when it passes, there are going to be a few out there that take advantage of it and are straight as an arrow....but thats food for another thread.:D

[seebs]

Seebs, my point was that those using the infertile couples example of couples that can't have kids that are male and female can get married so why can't those of the same sex do the same. I think the example is to weak. Those against gay marriage can shoot it down far to easy.

Not without admitting that it's not really about actual-reproduction.

Marriage was about procreation...but now with the population so great, I have to agree that it is not based mainly on procreation any more.

I do not believe it really was to begin with. To call marriage "about" any one thing is always an error; it's a complicated thing.

A women can have kids, depending on what type of hysterectomy she has preformed. As for the no matter who she marries part....needs to be a male or a third party member. As for the what she marries.....that may be food for another thread there.:blush:

Once we're allowing for surrogates, though, the gays can have kids too; we can move chromosomes around just fine these days.

[Mav]

Not without admitting that it's not really about actual-reproduction.
They still could counter. The conparison is to weak in MO.

I do not believe it really was to begin with. To call marriage "about" any one thing is always an error; it's a complicated thing.
I agree it is complicated. In todays time, it is more of a headache then any thing else. To much legal, religion, types of, and $. Marriage is a simple act when left alone. However, I feel it was about procreation in the past. We needed to increase the population, build towns and citys, fight wars, etc. There are even storys of women taking trains out West to marry a man out there they had never met sept though letters.
In todays time, that factor is no longer part of the equation.

Once we're allowing for surrogates, though, the gays can have kids too; we can move chromosomes around just fine these days.
Moving Shromosomes Around: Male gay couple; Male one donates the sperm and Male two's sperm is altered into an egg or Male one and Male two's sperm are combined and the egg from the surrogate is used? I want to be clear on what you ment before addressing.

[Griff]

100% health means everything works.I'm gay, man. If I'm supposed to be interested in forming a relationship with a hag, a gear somewhere in there is crooked. I'm not working correctly, either.

So Behavioral Irregularity is the reason. This factor would work in your favor. However it would have to be true for every couple, in order to prevent those that are not inflicted with this condition from using it to reap the benefits of being married.It's only a benefit if you intend to actually marry. Otherwise, it's an onus. You'd be at risk of your partner in crime taking you to court and suing for lifetime alimony every time you got laid, man. You'd have to be a freaking idiot to get married to someone you aren't even serious with. It's more trouble and legal liability than it could possibly be worth.

I agree. Same rules apply to you as well. You left out one part though: "had the capability at one point."Not a previously visectomized male and fertile woman. Some men just get themselves snipped so that they won't have to worry about having to pay child support after having a string of casual affairs that were never intended to go anywhere. We're not talking about taking away their marriage rights, though, are we?

[Mav]

It's only a benefit if you intend to actually marry. Otherwise, it's an onus. You'd be at risk of your partner in crime taking you to court and suing for lifetime alimony every time you got laid, man. You'd have to be a freaking idiot to get married to someone you aren't even serious with. It's more trouble and legal liability than it could possibly be worth.
Well that's true in any marriage. This one is not based on emotions, it is based on profit. Like I said, there are going to be some out there that will try it, and what your fighting for is going to open the door.;) I'm not saying it is good or bad, just that it will happen.

Not a previously vasectomized male and fertile woman. Some men just get themselves snipped so that they won't have to worry about having to pay child support after having a string of casual affairs that were never intended to go anywhere. We're not talking about taking away their marriage rights, though, are we?

Well, no one is trying to take your marrage rights away either,...your trying to get them to start with. While the person you discribed already has these rights, he chooses not to exicute them at that time. Now if he wants to go that far to avoid child support, then that's his choice. Hope he doesn't change his mind later on. This may not be the best counter point for you to use though. He had this done to avoid offspring with his casual affairs, where as a true gay couple doesn't have this production worry.

I'm gay, man. If I'm supposed to be interested in forming a relationship with a hag, a gear somewhere in there is crooked. I'm not working correctly, either.
I was referring to the straight couple. If they were at 100% health, they could have offspring if they choose to. The fact that you just called every women a "hag" leads me to believe that answering you is a waste of time. It would have been just as effective to type women instead of hag.

Good luck Griff.

[Seeker630]

You know people, I've been reading this thread and I have to say that I have never, EVER, seen or heard a single, valid, rational reason for denying gays the right to marry if they want to. Not one.

Since I'm an atheist, the religion thing is irrelevant to me. But this thread seems to have become a discussion about having children as the primary motivation for getting married in the 1st place.

Now I will say that for some people, having kids may indeed be part of the program right up front. But there are many who get married knowing they can't have kids for whatever medical reasons, or because of age. There are those who simply love each other and want to legalize their relationship, even though they may not intend to have any kids, and even though they are physically capable of doing so.

There is no legal requirement that anyone have kids once they are married--how would "society" enforce such an idiotic policy? Should there be some legal mechanism to unmarry non-productive couples? Maybe after 5 years and no kids? There is no legal requirement that anyone even say that they intend to have kids before they marry. I had a marriage license for 20 years, and no where on it was there a blank line asking the number of kids my wife and I intended to produce.

The whole---procreate/kids/fertility/intentions line of thought is a lot of silly nonsense. The homophobes in the world will twist shit no end to try and find excuses for the results of their irrational, stupid hatreds.

If the numbers I've seen in the past are anywhere near accurate, there's only about 3-4% of the U.S. population that's gay to start with, and probably only a small % of those are interested in getting married.

There is no rationally arguable reason to prevent gay marriage/civil unions.

[dmarker]

Having found no medical defecting factors in this homosexual couple, then it is their choice to live this type of life style. The Achilles Heal in their argument to justify marriage for this union combo is: The same argument can also be used to justify the marriage between a human and a dog, sheep, goat, etc. This union can also produce offspring with the help of a third party.

infertile heterosexual couples: To weak of an example to be used or considered.

Mav, this argument cannot be used to justify a marriage between a human and an animal becuase animals are property and have not contract rights.

[Griff]

This may not be the best counter point for you to use though. He had this done to avoid offspring with his casual affairs, where as a true gay couple doesn't have this production worry.Some of us would like to, though, some going to the extent of going through third parties.

I was referring to the straight couple. If they were at 100% health, they could have offspring if they choose to.And, if I were in 100% health, I would be attracted to the opposite sex like normal people and would never have ended up established with a guy. While this one in particular is a regular saint, he doesn't have a uterus, and neither do I. If we wanted kids, we'd have to adopt.

The fact that you just called every women a "hag" leads me to believe that answering you is a waste of time. It would have been just as effective to type women instead of hag.They sure look like hags to me. I wouldn't screw one of those things if you paid me to do it. Nothing particularly against women, but I don't find them attractive.

[Agnostic]

Mav, this argument cannot be used to justify a marriage between a human and an animal becuase animals are property and have not contract rights.

I thought the pertinent reason was that animals could not give informed consent. Are wild animals considered property? And non-emancipated minors are also legally considered property right, albeit a special form of property, that have no contract rights, but yet are allowed to marry with parental consent?

An OT question (if it gets too complicated I'll start a new thread): During the period when slavery was legal and slaves were "lesser" humans (I recall Thomas Jefferson saying something about this), slaves were considered property with no rights, right? But could non-slaves legally marry slaves then?

[Christina Mirabilis]

They sure look like hags to me. I wouldn't screw one of those things if you paid me to do it. Nothing particularly against women, but I don't find them attractive.

Hags? Things?

Nothing particular against gays or gay marriage, but from a purely strategic political viewpoint you might want to reconsider offending half of your potential voters and find some new terminology.

[dmarker]

Some of us would like to, though, some going to the extent of going through third parties.

And, if I were in 100% health, I would be attracted to the opposite sex like normal people and would never have ended up established with a guy. While this one in particular is a regular saint, he doesn't have a uterus, and neither do I. If we wanted kids, we'd have to adopt.

They sure look like hags to me. I wouldn't screw one of those things if you paid me to do it. Nothing particularly against women, but I don't find them attractive.

Christina is right. Just because you are not attracted to women doesn't mean that you have to call them all hags. I'm a hetrosexual female and not attracted to women, but I don't consider them all hags.

[Griff]

They're only hags if I'm being pressured to have sex with them. I'm fine around women until some guy tries to set me up. Even one I thought was pretty just the day before suddenly grows warts and nose hairs, bubble bubble, toil and trouble style. I do try to be nice, but I can't help how I react inwardly. For reference, consider how straight guys react to being approached by a gay male.

[Dlx2]

They're only hags if I'm being pressured to have sex with them. I'm fine around women until some guy tries to set me up. Even one I thought was pretty just the day before suddenly grows warts and nose hairs, bubble bubble, toil and trouble style. I do try to be nice, but I can't help how I react inwardly. For reference, consider how straight guys react to being approached by a gay male.

If a gay male hits on me, I don't suddenly find them disgusting and hideous. I simply tell them I'm not interested and that's that.

[Griff]

If a gay male hits on me, I don't suddenly find them disgusting and hideous. I simply tell them I'm not interested and that's that.Not everyone is as fortunate. Some men just want to crawl under the nearest rock and hide for eternity under the same circumstances. It's not an intentional or rational thing.

[dmarker]

I thought the pertinent reason was that animals could not give informed consent. Are wild animals considered property? And non-emancipated minors are also legally considered property right, albeit a special form of property, that have no contract rights, but yet are allowed to marry with parental consent?

An OT question (if it gets too complicated I'll start a new thread): During the period when slavery was legal and slaves were "lesser" humans (I recall Thomas Jefferson saying something about this), slaves were considered property with no rights, right? But could non-slaves legally marry slaves then?


Wild animals are the property of the people who own the land that they dwell on.

For example, if I owned land containing game animals such as pheasant, deer, rabbits, et I could hunt these animals or I can prevent others from hunting them on my property. If I owned a property that contained a lake with fish, I can fish that lake and prevent others from doing so. Think of mineral rights and you'll get the picture.

When it comes to humans, informed consent is the issue not property rights. I was only addressing the animal issue.

As for the legality of slaves getting married, I don't know much about it. What I do know is that African-Americans occupied a place between animals and European-Americans in legal terms, while cows were not counted when deciding how many reps would go to Washington DC, African-Americans counted as 3/5ths of an European American.

[Agnostic]

Offside remark but suddenly I'm reminded of a cartoon poking fun at an actual incident: "It's ok to be insensitive as long as you are polite about it." :D

[Agnostic]

As for the legality of slaves getting married, I don't know much about it. What I do know is that African-Americans occupied a place between animals and European-Americans in legal terms, while cows were not counted when deciding how many reps would go to Washington DC, African-Americans counted as 3/5ths of an European American.

European-Americans or Caucasian-Americans?

[dmarker]

They're only hags if I'm being pressured to have sex with them. I'm fine around women until some guy tries to set me up. Even one I thought was pretty just the day before suddenly grows warts and nose hairs, bubble bubble, toil and trouble style. I do try to be nice, but I can't help how I react inwardly. For reference, consider how straight guys react to being approached by a gay male.


Then I'm not a hag because gay men do not interest me. When the gaydar goes off, my interest disappears. :D

But I don't understand why people want to fix up gay men with women or gay women with men. To be honest, I think that most if not all romantic/sexual relationships between a gay person and a person of the opposite sex (from the gay person) are doomed to failure and heartbreak and it's best to avoid them. I'm a big believer that gay people should emerge from the closet and live as their natures intended them to live.

[dmarker]

European-Americans or Caucasian-Americans?


Yes, but I'm referencing the 18th and 19th centuries when they were one and the same.

And according to recent genetic research, we are all African anyway. :Cheeky:

[Griff]

Then I'm not a hag because gay men do not interest me. When the gaydar goes off, my interest disappears. :DExactly. I really didn't mean it offensively. I'll know to be careful how and where I use the term in the future, but, for future reference, take it as a cheeky term for emphasizing that women are off the menu, just in case you encounter it again.

[Dlx2]

Not everyone is as fortunate. Some men just want to crawl under the nearest rock and hide for eternity under the same circumstances. It's not an intentional or rational thing.

Neither is the disgust some people feel upon interacting with a member of another ethnic group. That doesn't make it acceptible.

One has a responsibility to fight the urge to see someone as repulsive just because they fall into a specific gender, race, or whatever. Especially someone such as yourself who is a member of a group that many people like to do just that to. Heterophobia is just as unattractive as homophobia.

[Griff]

Neither is the disgust some people feel upon interacting with a member of another ethnic group. That doesn't make it acceptible.I don't, though, except for a very specific type of interaction. If woman wants to talk to me, I sit and talk. If woman wants to get into my pants, I scream and run away. It is all part of the magnificent circle of life.

One has a responsibility to fight the urge to see someone as repulsive just because they fall into a specific gender, race, or whatever.You're off target, though. I'm only repulsed when the suggestion of sexual intercourse enters the conversation.

Especially someone such as yourself who is a member of a group that many people like to do just that to.I don't find this offensive, though. I don't insist on hanging out with people who are uncomfortable around gay men. That would be terribly rude. Let them get over their anxiety in their own time.

Heterophobia is just as unattractive as homophobia.I'm not heterophobic, though. I only scream and run away when the suggestion of sexual intercourse enters conversation. If I were to walk up to a straight guy and say "pardon me, sir, but I would like to touch your hiney," I'd wholly expect the same reaction.

[Dlx2]

I don't, though, except for a very specific type of interaction. If woman wants to talk to me, I sit and talk. If woman wants to get into my pants, I scream and run away. It is all part of the magnificent circle of life.

I have friends, male and female, who have tried to come onto me and failed because I'm not interested in them. I don't scream and run away. I tell them I'm flattered, but it could never happen, and life goes on. People can't help who they're attracted to, and you shouldn't treat them as repulsive just because you're not attracted to them.

You're off target, though. I'm only repulsed when the suggestion of sexual intercourse enters the conversation.

This is like saying, "I can be perfectly civil towards a black, but as soon as the suggestion of sexual intercourse enters into the conversation, I run screaming for the hills." If you're not attracted to someone, you let them down nicely, and continue to treat them as a human being.

I don't find this offensive, though. I don't insist on hanging out with people who are uncomfortable around gay men. That would be terribly rude. Let them get over their anxiety in their own time.

Except you're alienating people who aren't uncomfortable around gay men.

I'm not heterophobic, though. I only scream and run away when the suggestion of sexual intercourse enters conversation. If I were to walk up to a straight guy and say "pardon me, sir, but I would like to touch your hiney," I'd wholly expect the same reaction.

If a random woman walked straight up to me and said the same thing, I'd be uncomfortable as well, and I'm a heterosexual male. But if flirting comes up in conversation, I'm not suddenly going to stop talking to the person just because I can't return the attraction.

[Griff]

I have friends, male and female, who have tried to come onto me and failed because I'm not interested in them. I don't scream and run away. I tell them I'm flattered, but it could never happen, and life goes on. People can't help who they're attracted to, and you shouldn't treat them as repulsive just because you're not attracted to them.People can't help their gut reactions, either, which is why a lot of perceived homophobes get an undeserved bad rap. I don't have the slightest problem with a guy who says "well, I don't mind that you're gay as long as you will remember that I am not." It's legitimate. If a guy doesn't want you to touch his ass, don't touch his ass. If you want to keep your hetero friends, don't give them the impression that you're trying to talk them into bed. I'm walking away from years of experience with this.

Except you're alienating people who aren't uncomfortable around gay men.By being tolerant and respectful of the space of people who are just not comfortable around gay men? Or just by my use of the term "hag"? The latter was a careless choice of words, and I've stated already that I'll know to be more careful in the future whom I use it with. If you're referring to my natural reaction to a woman attempting to initiate courtship, it just isn't possible for me to find it anything but creepy. I wasn't advocating being discourteous. I was explaining a part of my nature.

[Mav]

Dmarker: Mav, this argument cannot be used to justify a marriage between a human and an animal because animals are property and have not contract rights.

Food for thought:
While not many are taking the opposing side, I chose to because I have heard (as well as many here have) both sides of the negotiations. To truly explore a topic, there needs to be an opposing side.

As for the animals not being able to consent, here is one that might:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-08-09-koko-gorilla_x.htm

As for animals, property, contract rights...cats own mansions, military and police K-9's hold rank and paychecks, etc. While these points can be shot down, if a group whined and cried on the matter long enough, in time we would find a way to justify it.

Now before you set your keyboard on fire answering what I just typed....... Stop and think about a news story, that when it first aired, stirred something in you. As time went on, you got to the point where you wish they would just do something so that you would not have to hear/see it any longer. No matter what the pros & cons were. Analogy: Like a child crying because they want something in the store, they often get it just to quite them. While children use this tactic, adults use it as well, but on a grander scale. Example: Boycotts, sanctions, Bill Clinton saying he didn't have sex.....This is one reason why I say that this form of marriage will pass.

Ware them down, and you get what you want.

Don't lite the bonfire with the stake in the middle just yet, IF homosexuality is a behavioral irregularity as stated earlier, then this would counter the statement made outside of this thread that it is a "natural act". Thus since it is no longer a "natural act" but a medical condition, it then rests on stronger grounds to allow the marriage. IF it is a choice, then it shouldn't be allowed. At some point the word NO has to be used, not just on this topic, but in many different areas. Science should play a part in the outcome.

Ok, light the bonfire with the stake in the middle now.:worried:

[CelticChic]

Don't lite the bonfire with the stake in the middle just yet, IF homosexuality is a behavioral irregularity as stated earlier, then this would counter the statement made outside of this thread that it is a "natural act". Thus since it is no longer a "natural act" but a medical condition, it then rests on stronger grounds to allow the marriage. IF it is a choice, then it shouldn't be allowed. At some point the word NO has to be used, not just on this topic, but in many different areas. Science should play a part in the outcome.

Ok, light the bonfire with the stake in the middle now.:worried:

I have thoughts on your other comments as well but this stood out. Why should the government have any say in who I or my neighbor chooses to contract myself to so long as they are a legal adult capable of consent? If homosexuality is a medical condition why does that mean the contract should be allowed when the persons personal decision (choice) is apparently not? That being the case, why limit it to homosexuals? I suggest that anyone who chooses to surgically remove all possibility of reproduction be banned from marrying. Maybe anyone who chooses to be tattooed, or to vocally oppose the policies of the majority. Oops...

I say again, the government (nor the collective group of individuals knows as "society") should take itself out of the legal contract known as marriage. Treat it as any other contract (adult, capable of informed consent etc) regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation and leave "marriage" to churches. I don't care if they choose not to marry anyone. It's the legal benefits and responsibilities that concern me.

[dmarker]

Food for thought:
While not many are taking the opposing side, I chose to because I have heard (as well as many here have) both sides of the negotiations. To truly explore a topic, there needs to be an opposing side.

As for the animals not being able to consent, here is one that might:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-08-09-koko-gorilla_x.htm



Whether Koko talks or not, she is still the legal property of the facility that she lives at.



As for animals, property, contract rights...cats own mansions, military and police K-9's hold rank and paychecks, etc. While these points can be shot down, if a group whined and cried on the matter long enough, in time we would find a way to justify it.

Can you name one cat that owns a mansion or a dog that has rank or gets a paycheck?



Now before you set your keyboard on fire answering what I just typed....... Stop and think about a news story, that when it first aired, stirred something in you. As time went on, you got to the point where you wish they would just do something so that you would not have to hear/see it any longer. No matter what the pros & cons were. Analogy: Like a child crying because they want something in the store, they often get it just to quite them. While children use this tactic, adults use it as well, but on a grander scale. Example: Boycotts, sanctions, Bill Clinton saying he didn't have sex.....This is one reason why I say that this form of marriage will pass.

Ware them down, and you get what you want.



You're really funny. What do you expect them to do? Shut up and go to the back of the bus?



Don't lite the bonfire with the stake in the middle just yet, IF homosexuality is a behavioral irregularity as stated earlier, then this would counter the statement made outside of this thread that it is a "natural act". Thus since it is no longer a "natural act" but a medical condition, it then rests on stronger grounds to allow the marriage. IF it is a choice, then it shouldn't be allowed. At some point the word NO has to be used, not just on this topic, but in many different areas. Science should play a part in the outcome.

Ok, light the bonfire with the stake in the middle now.:worried:

So what if it is a choice? If someone wants to marry a person of the same sex or even many people want to marry someone of the same sex, then what harm will it do?

[Griff]

Actually, police dogs do get rank and pay. Dogs are like our brothers. They are subordinate due to their natural limitations, but they are family. Neither my partner nor I are dogs, though. We're not gorillas, either.

[Agnostic]

If the government gets out of the marriage business and does only civil unions, I wonder if the polygamists and polyandrists will start clamouring for such rights for themselves.

[Mav]

CelticChic: I say again, the government (nor the collective group of individuals knows as "society") should take itself out of the legal contract known as marriage. Treat it as any other contract (adult, capable of informed consent etc) regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation and leave "marriage" to churches. I don't care if they choose not to marry anyone. It's the legal benefits and responsibilities that concern me.

I hope you don't mind that I red lettered part of your quote there CelticChic, but I wanted to quickly show a fast point on just those areas. The Government, made up by society, is part of the legal contract known as marriage because it gives tax breaks. Those that enter into a contract agreement both receive something. This is where reproduction might be the key factor.
The Government: What does the government receive from granting tax breaks to married couples? They may or may not get more tax payers in the end. A gamble well worth the risks in the long run, based on history. While there have been gay couples all through history, they have never been the majority, unless they were a local majority, or settled else where and set up their own government. Before you say it....With the help of a third party, they can have offspring, which would in turn become a tax payer. If you presented just the numbers, and extracted the emotions and religion from the government, you might squeak this through



Dmarker: Whether Koko talks or not, she is still the legal property of the facility that she lives at.


Until we push to have that changed. Lets say it does happen some where down the line. Koko is free!(with a green card)..what then?......remember there are only a few chromosomes difference between us and them. "I think your trying to deny us our happiness!"...see how quickly the same reasoning can be used in a different light. I know, food for another thread.

Dmarker: Can you name one cat that owns a mansion or a dog that has rank or gets a paycheck?
Not off the top of my head, but I do remember seeing the news reports talking about it years ago. Widow left everything to her cats when she passed. The lawyers tend the money, but the cats own the money and the property. Oops, a loop hole.
As for the police K-9, not to long ago, a K-9 was given the rank of Sargent in the police force and a pay raise.

Dmarker: You're really funny. What do you expect them to do? Shut up and go to the back of the bus?


That up to them. Your funny as well. They will either stay the fight or, as you put it, move to the back of the bus. By the way, what type of bus it is your talking about? :D

Dmarker: So what if it is a choice? If someone wants to marry a person of the same sex or even many people want to marry someone of the same sex, then what harm will it do?

Lets go with that Dmarker. Lets pretend that it is a choice, I choose to marry 10 different women, I choose to marry this dead person because I am a necrophiliac, I choose to marry my orangutan.
You should have said no to every example I just gave. If you did, then you see why if you allow Choice to be the only factor, you open the door to allow this. What harm will it do, as I stated before, there will be those that are not gay that will take advantage of it just for the tax breaks. Again, Food for yet another thread.

Since you addressed my post with nothing more then questions, I'll leave you with one.
Lets say that the reproduction factor is circumvented. It's allowed nation wide now. What will change other then the way their taxes are filed?

[Agnostic]

The Government: What does the government receive from granting tax breaks to married couples? They may or may not get more tax payers in the end. A gamble well worth the risks in the long run, based on history. While there have been gay couples all through history, they have never been the majority, unless they were a local majority, or settled else where and set up their own government. Before you say it....With the help of a third party, they can have offspring, which would in turn become a tax payer. If you presented just the numbers, and extracted the emotions and religion from the government, you might squeak this through.

Hmmm, maybe the government should just grant tax breaks to people who raise at least one non-severely-disabled child. As someone mentioned before, neither marriage nor child-production is a legal pre-requisite of either, and parents, married or not, already get tax breaks. (In my country, single parents have only JUST gotten tax-breaks, and even then, it's a fraction of what married parents get. Not to mention married parents get thousands of dollars in cash for each child born but single mothers don't.) Or, like I mentioned before, perhaps the government should only marry couples who have a child first. Much better than putting money out (in a way) and hoping. After all, it's supposed to use public resources prudently. I believe the reason is that the government thinks children with married parents turn out better, then again, that argument can be turned on its head since it doesn't force unmarried parents to get married.

I wonder if anyone has any stats on the proportion of childless married couples per those with children?

Until we push to have that changed. Lets say it does happen some where down the line. Koko is free!(with a green card)..what then?......remember there are only a few chromosomes difference between us and them. "I think your trying to deny us our happiness!"...see how quickly the same reasoning can be used in a different light. I know, food for another thread.

When the time comes when Koko can make informed decisions and enter contracts by herself, I won't oppose it.

Lets go with that Dmarker. Lets pretend that it is a choice, I choose to marry 10 different women, I choose to marry this dead person because I am a necrophiliac, I choose to marry my orangutan.
You should have said no to every example I just gave. If you did, then you see why if you allow Choice to be the only factor, you open the door to allow this. What harm will it do, as I stated before, there will be those that are not gay that will take advantage of it just for the tax breaks. Again, Food for yet another thread.

I don't see why you cannot marry 10 different women as long as all are consensual parties (we'll let the government work out the tax-break issues). But dead people and orangutans still cannot give informed consent as of now. (Sure, Koko has learnt 1000+ words in ASL, but even a child has a greater vocabulary. I'm not arguing Koko cannot give informed consent, only that we cannot know at this stage.)

Lets say that the reproduction factor is circumvented. It's allowed nation wide now. What will change other then the way their taxes are filed?

Social recognition. Psychological well-being. Intestate and other inheritance issues. Division of property and Alimony issues.

[Griff]

I hate to be a johnny raincloud, Mav, but that right there is the slippery slope fallacy. Before you could get away with that, you would first need to prove that providing for gays and lesbians would make bestialitists and polygamists more interested in getting marriage licenses than they have been before. Is there any historical precedent? You'd also have to show that gays and lesbians getting married makes people more open to polygamy and beast marriage.

The reverse is just as easy to claim: gays and lesbians, with their new social equality, could become socially conservative and staunchly oppose these groups, and the missing demand upon society for liberalization could result in society as a whole becoming more stodgy and disinclined to accept new ideas.

[TomboyMom]

I don't know, I'll PM ya when it happens.;)
You may have let your emotions get the best of ya there friend. In simple: I'm saying that gay couples comparing themselves to infertile straight couples is a bad comparison. Those blocking gay marriage can simply say that if both compared couples (gay and straight) were in 100% health without any medical problems...which could produce offspring? Simple as that. But they're not, so how does this help the argument? If pigs had wings, they could fly. They don't, so they can't. Both couples are exactly equally able to have children. Yet you permit one to marry, and the other not, because in an alternative universe they could have children?
The straight couples that choose not to have offspring, had the capability at one point. How is the capability to have children you have no intent to have related to your right to marry? If two couples have the exact same intent to reproduce (zero), what is the logic in allowing only one of them to do so?
I'll give ya that a straight couple may be infertile prior to marriage, this might be a loop hole, if marriage was based only on the production of offspring. While it works for straight couples,......but marriage is not based on the production of offspring alone. (but this thread is) Exactly. The argument is bogus.

[Mav]

Agnostic: Hmmm, maybe the government should just grant tax breaks to people who raise at least one non-severely-disabled child. As someone mentioned before, neither marriage nor child-production is a legal prerequisite of either, and parents, married or not, already get tax breaks. (In my country, single parents have only JUST gotten tax-breaks, and even then, it's a fraction of what married parents get. Not to mention married parents get thousands of dollars in cash for each child born but single mothers don't.) Or, like I mentioned before, perhaps the government should only marry couples who have a child first. Much better than putting money out (in a way) and hoping. After all, it's supposed to use public resources prudently. I believe the reason is that the government thinks children with married parents turn out better, then again, that argument can be turned on its head since it doesn't force unmarried parents to get married.

Parents, married or not get tax breaks in the U.S. for what reason?....they are raising new tax payers. I'm not sure what country your in, so I'm not quite sure what the laws are there, but here in the U.S., we have a minority of single mothers that make a living of having kids, and living off the government. Married couples get a tax break, but they get a bigger one if the have offspring. Single straight mother or gay mother, they both get the same tax breaks depending on which state they live in.

Finding out the stats on childless married couples; no matter how the numbers fall, they are still a minority. Sorry, but I still do not think that trying to create a loop hole in this area is going to amount to much. I still think that using the "behavioral irregularity" is their best bet.

"I won't oppose it." Koko sends her thanks:D

Agnostic: But dead people and orangutans still cannot give informed consent as of now. (Sure, Koko has learnt 1000+ words in ASL, but even a child has a greater vocabulary. I'm not arguing Koko cannot give informed consent, only that we cannot know at this stage.)


Donate my organs, I will my possessions to......, Sign where?..oh, I wish to make love after I'm.....This was just an extreme example showing that if we whine, cry, march, protest, debate, and rock the boat enough....they just might pass it. (fat chance though)
As for Koko and her giving informed consent; If she can tell us that she is in pain, (an emotion) then if she learned how to tell us she wants sex or a partner.....hummmm. The question then becomes whether or not we respect her wants.

This is getting wild, I think I had better state that I have no interest in marriage, sex, reproductive relationships with any non human animals...even Koko.:D

Agnostic: Social recognition. Psychological well-being. Intestate and other inheritance issues. Division of property and Alimony issues.

Social recognition....unless they tell or show everyone, who's gonna know. I don't think it will change the the way they are seen or treated...be that good or bad. Psychological well-being....I know friends who are gay who's psychological well-being is just fine now. I have to guess that it would bring some peace of mind to them though. As the Straight man said to his Straight wife on their wedding night, "It's OK honey, we are married now."


Inheritance, Division of Property and Alimony !! Here we go!!! Agnostic, I think you just stated the MAIN reason. The movement for marriage didn't take off until this started taking place more often. I was wondering if any one was going to bring up this part of the equation.

While not married: Anyone can have; Social recognition. (Goldie Hawn/Kurt Russell). Psychological well-being as well. The one thing they can not have with out being married is as you stated: Inheritance, Division of Property and Alimony. (The will can be contested)


TomboyMom, some of your questions/points were are ready covered. Why is this factor bogus. While I'm only playing the role here of the opposing side, you have not convenced me as of yet.

[reddhedd]

I still want to hear from someone in that mindset about sex while pregnant.

I realize this thread has meandered away from this question a bit, but I've only just read it and feel it deserves an answer...

Sex during pregnancy does indeed confer benefits for procreation. Actual intercourse keeps the perineum supple and flexible, and helps keep the muscles in the area toned. Orgasm keeps stress levels down and floods the body with the hormone oxytocin, (sometimes called the 'feel good' hormone) which gives us that warm, cuddly feeling after sex. Baby also receives the oxytocin, which helps mother and child to bond. The orgasm also causes the uterus to contract, which normally helps tone and exercise those muscles for the big day. (You may be warned off orgasm if you are having issues with premature labor)

Lastly, towards the end of pregnancy, semen helps soften the cervix. This happens whether or not the semen is applied vaginally or orally. (Oral is actually supposed to be more effective) Oral sex also puts pressure on the roof of the mouth. Right behind the little bump behind the upper teeth is a pressure point that releases oxytocin. (as an aside, this is why it is so hard to stop some kids from sucking their thumbs; everytime they do it, they get a hormonal reward!)

Anyway, sex helps a woman's body prepare for labor and delivery. I recommend plenty of it to all my clients....

[reddhedd]

As for Koko and her giving informed consent; If she can tell us that she is in pain, (an emotion) then if she learned how to tell us she wants sex or a partner.....hummmm. The question then becomes whether or not we respect her wants.


Minor quibble:
Pain is not an emotion. Pain is reaction to stimulus that is less than pleasurable. Although it can be expressed in an emotional way, it is a physical response.

If Koko says she wants a sex partner, get her one. Any other same aged female of her species would want and likely have one. Nothing out of the ordinary there, except for her expressing that desire in a language we can understand.

[Agnostic]

Parents, married or not get tax breaks in the U.S. for what reason?....they are raising new tax payers. I'm not sure what country your in, so I'm not quite sure what the laws are there, but here in the U.S., we have a minority of single mothers that make a living of having kids, and living off the government. Married couples get a tax break, but they get a bigger one if the have offspring. Single straight mother or gay mother, they both get the same tax breaks depending on which state they live in.

That's what I don't comprehend. If the rationale behind the government giving tax breaks to married couples is the hope they produce future tax-payers, why not withhold the tax breaks until they actually produce one? If a couple has a child only after 10 years of marriage, that's 10 years of tax-breaks saved, which could go somewhere where it's needed more, like public education for the kids that are already born. What tangible benefits do childless married couples give to society that'd merit tax-breaks? (Hmmm, sounds like material for a different thread...)

Finding out the stats on childless married couples; no matter how the numbers fall, they are still a minority. Sorry, but I still do not think that trying to create a loop hole in this area is going to amount to much. I still think that using the "behavioral irregularity" is their best bet.

I wasn't trying to find a loophole. I was just interested in the stats. I'm a geek that way. :D

Donate my organs, I will my possessions to......, Sign where?..oh, I wish to make love after I'm.....This was just an extreme example showing that if we whine, cry, march, protest, debate, and rock the boat enough....they just might pass it. (fat chance though)

I'm confused. Pass what? As for the 1st two, I don't find them extreme - they're simply legal instruments to carry on a person's wishes after his death (or in the case of living wills, after his incapitation), when he'll no longer be able to carry on his own wishes.

As for Koko and her giving informed consent; If she can tell us that she is in pain, (an emotion) then if she learned how to tell us she wants sex or a partner.....hummmm. The question then becomes whether or not we respect her wants.

But marriage is far more complicated than just sex (I think you only need presumed adult consent for sex, as in the case of a drunken couple?). Until we know Koko understands the more-or-less full implications of marriage, it's not informed consent. (Granted some people jump into marriage without considering the implications, but at least we know they are capable of knowing them. Which brings me to an OT question: are intellectually-subnormal people allowed to get married since they aren't legally allowed to enter into contracts without external approval?)

Social recognition....unless they tell or show everyone, who's gonna know. I don't think it will change the the way they are seen or treated...be that good or bad. Psychological well-being....I know friends who are gay who's psychological well-being is just fine now. I have to guess that it would bring some peace of mind to them though. As the Straight man said to his Straight wife on their wedding night, "It's OK honey, we are married now."

Forgetting tax-breaks, it's the same reason why many heterosexual couples get married - to allow others to recognise them as a "committed" couple who took vows to be together (granted that many are taking those vows so lightly), that they love each other so much they are willing to bind themselves legally as one. That may or may not be the primary function of marriage, but it's a perceived one. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to be big functions and announcements every time a couple gets married or someone says "yes" to another's proposal.

I know both gay and straight friends whose psychological well-being are fine too whether they are married/engaged/paired up or not. But different strokes for different people - some need more, some need less.

Inheritance, Division of Property and Alimony !! Here we go!!! Agnostic, I think you just stated the MAIN reason. The movement for marriage didn't take off until this started taking place more often. I was wondering if any one was going to bring up this part of the equation.

And who can blame them - seeing the heterosexual couples reaping social and financial benefits, while they are denied them cos they prefer to be true to themselves and not marry those they don't love. Maybe the government should also get out of this and just mandate updated wills and pre-nuptial contracts.

[Hooboy !!]

Therefore it must not be the case that non-procreative sex is wrong.
OK. I don't care though. It is futile sex. Have all the futile sex you want. I do not care. Have futile sex all the time. I do not care. Only have futile sex. I do not care. Have sex that results in children and I will care.

[Hooboy !!]

Actually, people are when they refuse them what they want to be happy when it doesn't harm others.
I want a 1967 Mustang Shelby GT 500. Since you are not going to give me one, or the government is not going to give me one, and since owning one would make me really really happy... are my rights being violated?

[Griff]

I want a 1967 Mustang Shelby GT 500. Since you are not going to give me one, or the government is not going to give me one, and since owning one would make me really really happy... are my rights being violated?No. You don't have an intrinsic right to a Mustang. My partner and I have a right to equality in the eyes of the law, though, and your reasons for opposing this are immoral.

[Hooboy !!]

No. You don't have an intrinsic right to a Mustang.
That's what would make me happy. Using the poster's logic, then I am entitled to one. I would like it in blue please.

My partner and I have a right to equality in the eyes of the law, though, and your reasons for opposing this are immoral.
You are equal in the eyes of the law. This about "marriage", not about individual rights.

You can talk to me about morality all day and I will tell you... I couldn't possibly care less. It has nothing to do with morality.

[Griff]

You can talk to me about morality all day and I will tell you... I couldn't possibly care less.Pretty much says it all. Get on the first boat out of the country, worm.

[Dlx2]

While not married: Anyone can have; Social recognition. (Goldie Hawn/Kurt Russell). Psychological well-being as well. The one thing they can not have with out being married is as you stated: Inheritance, Division of Property and Alimony. (The will can be contested)

How about the right to oversee your spouse's health care, etc.?

There are rights outside of the economic rights which are far more significant.

[Agnostic]

I want a 1967 Mustang Shelby GT 500. Since you are not going to give me one, or the government is not going to give me one, and since owning one would make me really really happy... are my rights being violated?

But it causes harm to me financially to give you an expensive car for no reason. And it's the pursuit of happiness that's guaranteed, not happiness itself - that'd be ridiculous. You have the right to pursue it, but you don't have a right to my money. My property rights come before, not after, your right to pursue happiness. Until you actually have the money and are refused the car even if it's available now or later, your right to the pursuit of happiness has not been violated (even though I believe some private companies can still refuse you as a customer for no particular reason).

Tell me how, in non-spurious terms, how gay marriage negatively affects those around them.

[Hooboy !!]

Pretty much says it all. Get on the first boat out of the country, worm.
After you.

You have no moral authority to sit in judgement of me. If you think you do, then you are no better than any evangelical. If you think your rights are being violated. Then make your rational case, because I couldn't possibly care less how much your feelings are hurt.

[Hooboy !!]

But it causes harm to me financially to give you an expensive car for no reason. And it's the pursuit of happiness that's guaranteed, not happiness itself - that'd be ridiculous.
Now yer gettin' it.

Tell me how, in non-spurious terms, how gay marriage negatively affects those around them.
Do you think that a marriage has no fiscal impact on society? Take insurance coverage for example. Do you think sharing coverage is free? Who do think picks up the slack?

[Dlx2]

Do you think that a marriage has no fiscal impact on society? Take insurance coverage for example. Do you think sharing coverage is free? Who do think picks up the slack?

You could make the same argument for excluding Hispanics from public schools or excluding Jews from public education.

You're granting a privilege to one demographic and prohibiting it to another. This is explicitly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Hooboy !!]

You could make the same argument for excluding Hispanics from public schools or excluding Jews from public education.
Wrong. Hispanic and Jewish families pay property taxes just like everyone else.

You're granting a privilege to one demographic and prohibiting it to another. This is explicitly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Fine. Then abolish marriage or allow every other form of marriage including: incestuous, polygamist, etc.

[Griff]

I couldn't possibly care less how much your feelings are hurt.Again, you only needed one sentence. Don't waste bandwidth.

The basic idea behind your argument is that you don't give a shit about the rights of gays or lesbians. I understand. As far as you're concerned, they can walk off a cliff. The thing is, I say the same of you. As far as I'm concerned, you can take a long walk down a short pier. You know that my financial interests count as much as yours do, but you don't care as long as you can convince yourself that you've gotten the bigger piece of the pie. I understand where you're coming from, and all it tells me is that you're completely anti-social. If you see a group of people being treated unfairly, you're supposed to feel at least something. You're supposed to have some sense of justice. <EDIT>

[Hooboy !!]

The basic idea behind your argument is that you don't give a shit about the rights of gays or lesbians.
Not true.

As far as you're concerned, they can walk off a cliff.
Sounds like you are projecting.

You know that my financial interests count as much as yours do
No they don't. I am raising children, who will be responsible for paying your social security and welfare. Be greatful.

If you see a group of people being treated unfairly, you're supposed to feel at least something.
Why? Who said life had to be "fair"? Who sets the standard for what is "fair"? You think life has treated me fairly?

You're supposed to have some sense of justice. <EDIT>
I have a sense of personal responsibility. I do not have a sense of pandering to a person with a chip on his shoulder.

[Dlx2]

Wrong. Hispanic and Jewish families pay property taxes just like everyone else.

Homosexuals pay insurance premiums. They also pay taxes.

Fine. Then abolish marriage or allow every other form of marriage including: incestuous, polygamist, etc.

Re: Incest: Incest is fine so long as no one's having kids and as long as it's not an abuse of trust by an older uncle, father, or whatever.

Re: Polyamory: I'm not against polyamorous marriages so long as the gender roles embodied by the marriage do not place either gender in the role of "property."

[Hooboy !!]

Homosexuals pay insurance premiums. They also pay taxes.
How does this entitle them to the advantages of being married?

Re: Incest: Incest is fine so long as no one's having kids and as long as it's not an abuse of trust by an older uncle, father, or whatever.
Wow. I want to marry my dad then. He needs the benefits of my insurance carrier.

[Dlx2]

No they don't. I am raising children, who will be responsible for paying your social security and welfare. Be greatful.

And Griff pays taxes which pay for your kids' education. Be grateful.

Why? Who said life had to be "fair"? Who sets the standard for what is "fair"? You think life has treated me fairly?

Sure, murder isn't fair. Who said life has to be fair?
Sure, genocide isn't fair. Who said life has to be fair?
Sure, sodomizing Hooboy isn't fair. Who said life has to be fair?

If "life's not fair" isn't a reasonable defense for any of those acts, why should it be a reasonable defense for prohibiting homosexual marriages?

By the way, there's a good standard for "fair" in the 14th Amendment.

I have a sense of personal responsibility.

If this was the case, you would judge marriages based on the virtues of the people entering into them, rather than their anatomy.

Don't try to hide your vitriol within a jar masquerading as pseudolibertarianism.

[Agnostic]

Now yer gettin' it.


Do you think that a marriage has no fiscal impact on society? Take insurance coverage for example. Do you think sharing coverage is free? Who do think picks up the slack?

But I still don't get it. Because allowing gay people to marry causes no harm (reasonable definition) to others nor violates the rights of others yet allows them to pursue happiness in a form they desire. No one is stopping you from getting a Mustang if you have the means, unless you choose to do so out of consideration for others.

And it's because I know of the fiscal impacts of marriage on society that I question the government's granting of tax-breaks to married couples before the production of children or production of anything else that contributes tangibly to society. In fact, children themselves are financial liabilities until they actually become economically productive members of society. Why should people not allowed to marry subsidise the tax-breaks of those allowed to? Why should people subsidise the education of children that's not theirs? Why should working people subsidise the welfare checks the chronically unemployed get? It's because we live in a society and we share the burdens and liabilities. It's aggregation. But you seem to argue marriage-related benefits which ALL tax-payers contribute to should only apply to heterosexual married couples.

/edit: Sorry to all who replied before me whose arguments I repeated. His reply to me was at the end of the 4th page and I thought it was the last.

Fine. Then abolish marriage or allow every other form of marriage including: incestuous, polygamist, etc.

Marriage does not need to be abolished. The government just needs to get out of it. Let the organised religions handle marriages and the government handle contracts.

How does this entitle them to the advantages of being married?

Marriage is a privilege, not an entitlement. How does being straight entitle you to the benefits of being married? It's just a sexual orientation - it doesn't magically add dollars to the government's coffers. It's not as if you've done anything (yet) that benefits society. Tell me what, when a couple gets married, they've done to deserve those benefits. If it's children the government wants, don't preach abstinence. If it's children raised by responsible parents the government wants, then preach good parenting, not marriage. If it's children raised by responsible parents who married to each other the government wants, then ban divorce.

Wow. I want to marry my dad then. He needs the benefits of my insurance carrier.

I don't know what the insurance laws are in the US, but in my country, insurance carriers can deny coverage.

[Hooboy !!]

And Griff pays taxes which pay for your kids' education. Be grateful.
Oh. I am. But, do you honestly think this contribution is anywhere near the contribution I make?

Don't try to hide your vitriol within a jar masquerading as pseudolibertarianism.
Pffft. I am unimpressed with your writhing up on that cross.

[Hooboy !!]

But I still don't get it.
Obviously.

In fact, children themselves are financial liabilities until they actually become economically productive members of society.
Then, I suggest we ban having children. See how well that works out.

[Plognark]

Do you think that a marriage has no fiscal impact on society? Take insurance coverage for example. Do you think sharing coverage is free? Who do think picks up the slack?

Got any other objections? That's about all I've seen so far...

I also don't think it's a valid objection. Denying equal rights to any group just to save private companies a couple bucks in health insurance premiums seems kind of...lame.

[Hooboy !!]

Got any other objections? That's about all I've seen so far...

I also don't think it's a valid objection. Denying equal rights to any group just to save private companies a couple bucks in health insurance premiums seems kind of...lame.
I've argued this several times on this board and I am not going to go through it all again. The argument "denying rights" is simply not true BTW, no matter how many times it is repeated.

Oh and... it is not saving private companies anything. The costs of doing business are passed on to consumers.

[Plognark]

I might also add that many life, health, and disability coverages offered by private companies already include domestic partnership clauses that grant equal coverage to domestic partners, regardless of gender. In some states, like NJ and Mass. already recognize gay marriages, and I can assure you that insurance contractual language has already been updated to include such unions. Nevermind the fact that we're talking about around, what, 5-10% of the population? And how many of them will actually get married?

The supposedly catastrophic financial impact many conservatives bring up is dramatically overblown.

So, again, other than a largely negligible financial impact, what have you got?

[Plognark]

I've argued this several times on this board and I am not going to go through it all again. The argument "denying rights" is simply not true BTW, no matter how many times it is repeated.

Oh and... it is not saving private companies anything. The costs of doing business are passed on to consumers.

Why is the "denying rights" argument false?

Why is this cost a reason to deny any group equal rights? (No, I don't buy the "they've already got equal rights" stance either.)

Oh, and no, I'm not going to start slinging insults. I don't have time for that drek either. I can agree to disagree in the end :grin:

[Clete]

I've argued this several times on this board and I am not going to go through it all again. The argument "denying rights" is simply not true BTW, no matter how many times it is repeated.

Oh and... it is not saving private companies anything. The costs of doing business are passed on to consumers.
Hmmm...presumably people made the same arguments against interracial marriage at one time as well. It wouldn't have been a good reason to deny people the right to marry back then and it isn't a good reason now.

[Hooboy !!]

Hmmm...presumably people made the same arguments against interracial marriage at one time as well. It wouldn't have been a good reason to deny people the right to marry back then and it isn't a good reason now.
The inter-racial analogy is not applicable. Inter-racial marriages would result in children. People's concern about inter-racial children was noted and dismissed, justifiably.

[Hooboy !!]

Why is the "denying rights" argument false?
Because no "rights" are being denied. Marriage is not a right.

[Agnostic]

Obviously.


Then, I suggest we ban having children. See how well that works out.

This might work better if you didn't simply pick up "choice morsels" to rebut, if the above can actually be considered rebuttals.

I suppose I could 'rebut' your "obviously" with this: pursuit, not happiness, no harm done, no rights violated. Maybe you can see what my argument is with this, because I can't with your "obviously". I sincerely hope you don't 'rebut' this with another "Obviously."

As for the children, they are financial liabilities. The government hopes they will become future tax-payers, so I repeat, in general form, what does marriage have to do with children if it's only children as potential tax-payers the government is concerned about?

And unless I'm wrong, insurance premiums in the US follow international 'standards' and vary and depend on many factors. It's not one-size-fits-all.

Because no "rights" are being denied. Marriage is not a right.

So how does being straight qualify you for the privilege of marriage benefits? Have you earned them? Or is marriage supposed to be patronage?

[Clete]

The inter-racial analogy is not applicable. Inter-racial marriages would result in children.
Actually since I was responding to the "oh no it'll raise my insurance rate" argument I think it's quite applicable. If you want to bring reproduction into it I'm sure an unmarried, childless person like myself could easily start bemoaning the fact that my insurance rates and taxes are higher to offset the costs of other people's children.

People's concern about inter-racial children was noted and dismissed, justifiably.
Just like concerns about same-sex marriage will be.

[Hooboy !!]

As for the children, they are financial liabilities. The government hopes they will become future tax-payers, so I repeat, in general form, what does marriage have to do with children if it's only children as potential tax-payers the government is concerned about?
Marriage provides an environment for raising and nurturing children so that they are more likely to end up as contributing members of society.

And unless I'm wrong, insurance premiums in the US follow international 'standards' and vary and depend on many factors. It's not one-size-fits-all.
You are wrong and you are right, which means that you are in a contradiction. You are wrong in that insurance premiums follow any kind of "international 'standards'". You are right that it is not a "one-size-fits-all" formula. Premiums are a function of region and demographics. Unless of course you are a citizen of a country where there is universal health care.

So how does being straight qualify you for the privilege of marriage benefits? Have you earned them? Or is marriage supposed to be patronage?
It doesn't really. Being straight does not intrinsically make me a better parent. There are a lot of assumptions made regarding the benefit a marriage will have to society.

- Will the marriage produce children?
- Will the resulting children become contributing members of society (and all of the assumptions that go into determining this).

Some times the assumptions are wrong. Usually. They are right.

[Hooboy !!]

Actually since I was responding to the "oh no it'll raise my insurance rate" argument I think it's quite applicable. If you want to bring reproduction into it I'm sure an unmarried, childless person like myself could easily start bemoaning the fact that my insurance rates and taxes are higher to offset the costs of other people's children.
Oh, and complain all you want about how your rates go up. That is exactly what I am talking about. Perfect. That's the bad news. The good news? The children produced by heterosexual unions (including inter-racial ones) will pay you back at some point. So, it is a sound investment on your part.

[Griff]

I am raising children, who will be responsible for paying your social security and welfare.With you for a father? They'll be living their entire lives on it. A lot of us are talking about raising up peeps of our own to help pay for it, so be grateful.

You think life has treated me fairly?Again, pretty much says it all. Care to waste anymore bandwidth? We're helping to pay for your damned marriage. You didn't think of that, did you? That's what's wrong with your analogy. It's something we're helping to pay for.

[Dlx2]

Oh. I am. But, do you honestly think this contribution is anywhere near the contribution I make?

Yes. Considering the tax breaks that exist for folks with dependants as well as the fact that families are hardly able to pay for the educatiion of their children on their own, the fact that your children can read and write is thanks to folks like Griff who don't have children, and older folks who are no longer supporting their children.

If you want to object on economic grounds, you need to acknowledge that we pay more so that you can have the privilege of raising children.

Pffft. I am unimpressed with your writhing up on that cross.

I can legally marry the woman I love. I am not objecting for purely selfish reasons. I object to your vitriol because:

1) it would be wrong to deny others the right to have the state acknowledge their relationships.
2) I recognize that there are reasons besides economics that one would want state recognition of their relationship to their significant other.
3) I, unlike you, am not a close-minded and selfish bastard.
4) All of the above.

[Clete]

Oh, and complain all you want about how your rates go up. That is exactly what I am talking about. Perfect. That's the bad news. The good news? The children produced by heterosexual unions (including inter-racial ones) will pay you back at some point. So, it is a sound investment on your part.
To put this in fiscally conservative terms for you: Why would I