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.
If the definition to the purpose and function of marriage is for men and women to raise their children to be the future citizens of their communities, then two gay men would not qualify under that definition.
Since when can two gay men not raise children? Or two women?
If the definition to the purpose and function of marriage is for men and women to raise their children to be the future citizens of their communities, then two gay men would not qualify under that definition.
People who don't want kids, or those who are infertile, could not raise children of their own either. Yet there has never been a ban, or lack of qualification, on heterosexual couples to get married that have that problem/lifestyle.
Gay couples can raise children to be future citizens of their communities. They adopt, or have in vitro fertilization, like many heterosexual couples do as well. Heterosexual couples were never barred from marriage or having children in this fashon either. Same with step parents, as they raise children not both of their genetic offsrping. They have never been barred from getting married or keeping their children because they are not both the childs biological parents...even if the child was adopted or in vitro.
Do you only want to limit marriage to those who can only produce children that are biological each others?
Your argument seems to be against marriage itself, not about homosexuals getting married. Since the same criteria that you apply to homosexual couples in order to not let them marry applies to millions of heterosexual couples.
There's nothing to agree on; there does not need to be ANY "function" or "purpose." When I signed my marriage license, I was not asked why I was getting married, and it wasn't anyone's business but mine and my wife's. It isn't the government's business why, and it sure as hell isn't yours.
So why did you go thru the trouble of getting a marriage license, if "it wasn't anyone's business" but yours and your wife's?" You do not need anyone's endorsement in government to get married, either in a religious ceremony or a private one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199
You and the other anti-equality people are desperately seeking new and innovative ways to mask prejudice. That's all it is.
And you and yours are trying to be purposely obtuse.
It's not prejudice to concede the biological fact that men and women make babies together, and two men cannot, and never will. It's not that it's rare that two men cannot make a baby together, it's impossible. It is rare when a man and a woman are unable to make a baby together.
As community, as a nation, it's common sense to want the men and women making the babies to live together and raise their children together. That is the purpose and function of marriage you are refusing to acknowledge.
So why did you go thru the trouble of getting a marriage license, if "it wasn't anyone's business" but yours and your wife's?" You do not need anyone's endorsement in government to get married, either in a religious ceremony or a private one.
And you and yours are trying to be purposely obtuse.
It's not prejudice to concede the biological fact that men and women make babies together, and two men cannot, and never will. It's not that it's rare that two men cannot make a baby together, it's impossible. It is rare when a man and a woman are unable to make a baby together.
As community, as a nation, it's common sense to want the men and women making the babies to live together and raise their children together. That is the purpose and function of marriage you are refusing to acknowledge.
What does this have to do with anything? It literally makes no sense. Allowing same-sex couples to get married is not going to stop or prevent opposite-sex couples from also getting married and having children. Same-sex couples can either adopt children or use in-vitro fertilization or a surrogate mother to have children of their own. What is the issue here?
If the definition to the purpose and function of marriage is for men and women to raise their children to be the future citizens of their communities, then two gay men would not qualify under that definition.
Gay men can raise adopted or surrogate children to be future citizens of their communities.
Problem?
People who don't want kids, or those who are infertile, could not raise children of their own either. Yet there has never been a ban, or lack of qualification, on heterosexual couples to get married that have that problem/lifestyle.
Do you even know what the term infertile means?
It is rare for a man or a woman to be sterile, and incapable of having children. In those cases of sterility, the married couple involved are not even aware that either of them are sterile before they marry. We can however, look at two gay men and know they are incapable of creating a baby together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer
Gay couples can raise children to be future citizens of their communities. They adopt, or have in vitro fertilization, like many heterosexual couples do as well. Heterosexual couples were never barred from marriage or having children in this fashon either. Same with step parents, as they raise children not both of their genetic offsrping. They have never been barred from getting married or keeping their children because they are not both the childs biological parents...even if the child was adopted or in vitro.
Do you only want to limit marriage to those who can only produce children that are biological each others?
Your argument seems to be against marriage itself, not about homosexuals getting married. Since the same criteria that you apply to homosexual couples in order to not let them marry applies to millions of heterosexual couples.
Yes of course, if gay couples adopt just as can a single person can, or a single gay or straight woman can get herself pregnant and raise the child on her own.
Personally I do not have any problem with a gay or lesbian couple raising adopted children, or thru the use of donors or surrogate mothers, raising each others children.
It is rare for a man or a woman to be sterile, and incapable of having children. In those cases of sterility, the married couple involved are not even aware that either of them are sterile before they marry. We can however, look at two gay men and know they are incapable of creating a baby together.
Yes of course, if gay couples adopt just as can a single person can, or a single gay or straight woman can get herself pregnant and raise the child on her own.
Personally I do not have any problem with a gay or lesbian couple raising adopted children, or thru the use of donors or surrogate mothers, raising each others children.
We do know that elderly people will not be having children, yet they are allowed to get married. We do know that women that have had their tubes tied will not be having children, yet they are allowed to get married. We do know that men that have had a vasectomy will not be having children, yet they are allowed to get married. Why is it only homosexuals that you want to restrict?
Since you are ok with homosexuals adopting, or having children, why do you want to deny their families the same legal protections that heterosexual couples can get?
If the definition to the purpose and function of marriage is for men and women to raise their children to be the future citizens of their communities, then two gay men would not qualify under that definition.
And since we don't mandate that only those capable of bearing children marry (aside from the fact that many couples raise children without bearing them, thus making it glaringly obvious to anyone with half a clue that procreative ability is not a necessary element of parenthood), that that clearly not the 'purpose and function' of marriage.
There are even states that, in some cases (the marriage of first cousins) mandate that one or the other of the marrying couple provide medical documentation that they are not capable of bearing children (women) or of impregnating a woman (men) - these states are Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Utah and Wisconsin. This alone demonstrates that the ability of a couple to bear children is not an inherent element of marriage.
You people make up the most baseless excuses to justify your bigotry, and you're too clueless to think through the logical implications of the silly excuses you toss forth.
Hint - That's why your ilk is constantly losing in the courts. You have no logic on your side, and it all boils down to animus.
It is rare for a man or a woman to be sterile, and incapable of having children. In those cases of sterility, the married couple involved are not even aware that either of them are sterile before they marry. We can however, look at two gay men and know they are incapable of creating a baby together.
5% of the population (depending on country) cannot conceive. Excluding injuries and diseases that damage the organs. 20% for both to be an issue in conception is not rare, see infertility.
Heterosexual couples haven't been barred from marriage that have had traumas, diseases and injuries that prevented them from conceiving. Including wounded veterans with lower body blast injuries. Weather we can look at them or not and know they can have babies, usually some one knows if they had cancer, a radical hysterectomy or got their nuts blown off.
So ~18% that cannot have children are not barred from marriage, and it is not rare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
Yes of course, if gay couples adopt just as can a single person can, or a single gay or straight woman can get herself pregnant and raise the child on her own.
Personally I do not have any problem with a gay or lesbian couple raising adopted children, or thru the use of donors or surrogate mothers, raising each others children.
Then what was the point of this post?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
If the definition to the purpose and function of marriage is for men and women to raise their children to be the future citizens of their communities, then two gay men would not qualify under that definition.
If gays shouldn't get married because they can't have kids, then the though includes heterosexual couples that can't/won't have kids either. This isn't novel or tricky logic.
Last edited by EmeraldCityWanderer; 12-27-2013 at 04:17 PM..
Originally Posted by MMM05 And when the Temple in Israel is rebuilt...SOON, all will be ready for this mess to Stop.
So....should I still buy green bananas?
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.
