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.
Since my comment was about religious marriage, I assume you're equating traditional marriage and religious marriages? My parents have been married 34 years. They're also both atheists. Are you saying that their marriage is somehow religious in nature???
No.
Read my post, where I stated "We did not involve government in this over religious reasons"
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
You're asking this last question completely backwards. Our country is founded on the principles liberty and freedom - we abridge these liberties and freedoms only when the serve a great public good. The question here is why should government involve itself in banning gay marriage - why should the government discriminate in that manner and deny that liberty to gay couples?
I'm saying that government involved itself in marriage, because men and women make babies, and encouraging and subsidizing the parents to raise the children together is best for the nation. Two gay men cannot make a baby, so there is no need for government to involve itself in trying to encourage them to get married, nor to subsidize them so they stay married.
Society would not bother to force government to involve itself in marriage, if it was only about gay men and lesbian women.
There must be a rational and overriding public need to involve government. The simplistic way to put it, would be that the need to involve government must be to prevent severe detrimental harm to the nation, or to promote great good for the nation.
Two gay men cannot make a baby, so there is no need for government to involve itself in trying to encourage them to get married, nor to subsidize them so they stay married.
My wife cannot make a baby, and I'm planning to do the old snip-snip myself soon. You suggesting our marriage ought be invalidated?
Read my post, where I stated "We did not involve government in this over religious reasons"
I'm saying that government involved itself in marriage, because men and women make babies, and encouraging and subsidizing the parents to raise the children together is best for the nation. Two gay men cannot make a baby, so there is no need for government to involve itself in trying to encourage them to get married, nor to subsidize them so they stay married.
Society would not bother to force government to involve itself in marriage, if it was only about gay men and lesbian women.
As has been stated numerous times on this forum, and I'm sure elsewhere, until you start mandating procreation as part-and-parcel of being legally married, the issue child-bearing is a logical non-starter.
I'm saying that government involved itself in marriage, because men and women make babies, and encouraging and subsidizing the parents to raise the children together is best for the nation.
Which, until the ability to procreate is a requirement to get a marriage certificate, is completely irrelevant to the subject of homosexuality.
My wife cannot make a baby, and I'm planning to do the old snip-snip myself soon. You suggesting our marriage ought be invalidated?
No, on that we just rightly assume that men and women make babies, and leave it at that. The married couples who are classified as infertile is very small, and even those who are may have previously had children.
On the other hand. The number of gay male couples who can make a baby together is ZERO, so we rightly assume they will never make a baby together.
No, on that we just rightly assume that men and women make babies, and leave it at that. The married couples who are classified as infertile is very small, and even those who are may have previously had children.
On the other hand. The number of gay male couples who can make a baby together is ZERO, so we rightly assume they will never make a baby together.
And yet the number of gay-couple led households in the US raising children is in the 6 figures. Should they not at least be entitled to the "benefits and perks" of civil marriage in your scheme?
And I find your rationale pointless and irrelevant. The presence of children, or even the ability to naturally procreate, is not a consideration when it comes to contracting a civil marriage anywhere in the US.
Single hetero people have the option to get married, and have access to government protections for their family that are not available to same sex couples.
IF the governments only reason for licensing marriage was for raising children, then same sex couples should be allowed to marry too since many of them are raising children.
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.
