Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Having said that I'm pretty sure that the government intention when it decided to license the act of marriage between a man and a woman was to establish some stability to the family unit for the primary benefit of the raising of children. That's a secular idea, not a religious one and since gay couples can't produce offspring one can certainly argue that there simply is no need for the government to sanction same sex marriage.
Except marriages where one spouse is unable to or where neither spouse has any desire to have children aren't discouraged or forbidden.
IHaving said that I'm pretty sure that the government intention when it decided to license the act of marriage between a man and a woman was to establish some stability to the family unit for the primary benefit of the raising of children. That's a secular idea, not a religious one and since gay couples can't produce offspring one can certainly argue that there simply is no need for the government to sanction same sex marriage.
There is no "need", by your logic, for the government to sanction marriages between senior citizens, who most definitely have zero chance of raising biological children. What is your answer to that, since you claim that the only civil purpose for marriage is to breed? Does the government require childless couples to divorce after a certain period of time? Why not, according to your logic?
Sorry, this "argument" holds no water. Not to mention that plenty of gay couples DO raise (adopted) children--children who'd be in foster care or orphanages otherwise. But there is no language in state law that married couples must bear or raise children, whether you are "pretty sure" that is the intent, or not.
There is no "need", by your logic, for the government to sanction marriages between senior citizens, who most definitely have zero chance of raising biological children. What is your answer to that, since you claim that the only civil purpose for marriage is to breed? Does the government require childless couples to divorce after a certain period of time? Why not, according to your logic?
Sorry, this "argument" holds no water. Not to mention that plenty of gay couples DO raise (adopted) children--children who'd be in foster care or orphanages otherwise. But there is no language in state law that married couples must bear or raise children, whether you are "pretty sure" that is the intent, or not.
I never made the claim that same sex couples were incapable of parenting children nor did I state or imply that heterosexual couples needed to have children as a requirement of marriage. I simply stated that the government sanctioning of marriage was based on preserving and strengthening the family unit for the sake of raising a family and that does not (biologically) apply to same sex couples.
And you are aware that single people can adopt children right? No marriage license needed.
I agree with your description of our government model. I almost added something about our govt being modeled on the Roman Republic, but figured I wanted to get to the point...
That being... at one time, there was no doubt a slant toward preservation of the family unit when the govt got involved in marriage and the issuance of secular licenses.
But... times have changed. We now need them for survivors' benefits, health insurance, etc.
And there are plenty of heterosexual couples who marry today that intentionally do NOT choose to have children.
Soo... why not let gay people get married? It seems unfair to deny them the financial benefits of a license when they are already living as though they are married.
You and I agree on this. I just differ in my opinion of how to go about making changes. I think it is wiser to pursue a change in financial laws if that is the primary motivation. There will always be a sizable resistance to the idea of gay marriage because a large percentage of the population views homosexuality in a negative light and nothing is going to change their minds. I made this point in another thread on this topic. If you're gay then go live your life with whoever you want and stop worrying about what other people think about it, most especially the government.
You and I agree on this. I just differ in my opinion of how to go about making changes. I think it is wiser to pursue a change in financial laws if that is the primary motivation. There will always be a sizable resistance to the idea of gay marriage because a large percentage of the population views homosexuality in a negative light and nothing is going to change their minds. I made this point in another thread on this topic. If you're gay then go live your life with whoever you want and stop worrying about what other people think about it, most especially the government.
How about Government and Theocratic Fighters of God live their life with whoever they want and stop worrying about who other people choose to date, most especially the government?
Gay people aren't the ones worrying about how other people live but quite opposite
It's not Gay people who freak out over the topic of same sex marriage throwing out bible verses and talking about preserving families and have a religious purge and "Killing the enemy" (or whatever). It's quite the opposite. Pro/apathetic same sex marriage/civil unions people are amused by the logial fallacies and off the rocker comments made by those anti same sex marriage/civil unions who are very angry, hateful, and testy.
There will always be a sizable resistance to the idea of gay marriage because a large percentage of the population views homosexuality in a negative light and nothing is going to change their minds.
Fascinating quote. Replace "gay marriage" and "homosexuality" in the sentence above with words about another group -- black people -- and you'll get EXACTLY what many white people used to say when arguing against equal rights for all races.
Example: "There will always be a sizable resistance to the idea of BLACKS DRINKING FROM ANY WATER FOUNTAIN because a large percentage of the population view BLACKS in a negative light and nothing is going to change their minds."
Some people have short memories or weren't alive at that time, I guess.
North Carolina finally came around as far as equal rights for all races. Don't you think they'll come around for gay rights? Why not?
How about Government and Theocratic Fighters of God live their life with whoever they want and stop worrying about who other people choose to date, most especially the government?
Gay people aren't the ones worrying about how other people live but quite opposite
It's not Gay people who freak out over the topic of same sex marriage throwing out bible verses and talking about preserving families and have a religious purge and "Killing the enemy" (or whatever). It's quite the opposite. Pro/apathetic same sex marriage/civil unions people are amused by the logial fallacies and off the rocker comments made by those anti same sex marriage/civil unions who are very angry, hateful, and testy.
Really? You are advocating a change in the marriage law. Not me. And I'm not the one critising your lifestyle with bible verses so direct that anger at the person that did.
You are getting all worked up because someone else doesn't approve of your homosexuality. I think that is exactly why it shouldn't be a government issue.
Fascinating quote. Replace "gay marriage" and "homosexuality" in the sentence above with words about another group -- black people -- and you'll get EXACTLY what many white people used to say when arguing against equal rights for all races.
Example: "There will always be a sizable resistance to the idea of BLACKS DRINKING FROM ANY WATER FOUNTAIN because a large percentage of the population view BLACKS in a negative light and nothing is going to change their minds."
Some people have short memories or weren't alive at that time, I guess.
North Carolina finally came around as far as equal rights for all races. Don't you think they'll come around for gay rights? Why not?
That is a pretty weak attempt to change around what I said but for the record I don't think gay people have been denied the right drink from any water fountains.
And for the sake of clarity, this sums up my OPINION on this topic and then I'll bail out since some people's feathers seem to be getting ruffled.
"Marriage privatization is the concept that the state should have no authority to define the terms of personal relationships such as marriage. Proponents of marriage privatization claim that such relationships are best defined by private individuals."
Really? You are advocating a change in the marriage law. Not me. And I'm not the one critising your lifestyle with bible verses so direct that anger at the person that did.
You are getting all worked up because someone else doesn't approve of your homosexuality. I think that is exactly why it shouldn't be a government issue.
I'm not getting worked up . I don't get worked up over it. I don't care. I live happily without worrying about what other people do. I get worked up over comparisons of Charlotte VS. Atlanta/Raleigh. Not over logical fallacies whose greatest argument against civil unions is "Because they can't make babies"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I don't get worked up over it. I don't care. I live happily without worrying about what other people do. I get worked up over comparisons of Charlotte VS. Atlanta/Raleigh. Not over logical fallacies whose greatest argument against civil unions is "Because they can't make babies" 
