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.
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.
We know men and women make babies together, there are a few billion examples, hence the reason society promotes marriage between sexually active men and women.
We do not worry that two gay men will spontaneously make a baby together, whether they intended to or not. We do worry about that with men and women, so we encourage marriage.
Absolutely not. YOU introduced the idea that child-bearing was a driving force for legal marriage. So, until a legal marriage requires procreation, this is a logical dead-end.
We know men and women make babies together, there are a few billion examples, hence the reason society promotes marriage between sexually active men and women.
We do not worry that two gay men will spontaneously make a baby together, whether they intended to or not. We do worry about that with men and women, so we encourage marriage.
And yet post menopausal women are allowed to marry. And 80 year old men can get married.
And infertile couples.
Some states have laws concerning marriage that say certain couples have to prove that they are infertile before they are allowed to marry.
So obviously reproduction is not the only reason that government is involved in marriage.
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.
Sorry, but most gay male couples are just having sex, not running out and adopting babies.
But for those who are, we should have protections and benefits for them that equal hetero couples with children.
But since gays must adopt to do this, i will not just assume that they will adopt, nor will I assume that they will unexpectedly adopt, even if they did not want to do so.
Sorry, but most gay male couples are just having sex, not running out and adopting babies.
But for those who are, we should have protections and benefits for them that equal hetero couples with children.
But since gays must adopt to do this, i will not just assume that they will adopt, nor will I assume that they will unexpectedly adopt, even if they did not want to do so.
So, then, hetero couples should also be denied those protection and benefits, should they choose not to/be unable to have children.
Sorry, but most gay male couples are just having sex, not running out and adopting babies.
But for those who are, we should have protections and benefits for them that equal hetero couples with children.
But since gays must adopt to do this, i will not just assume that they will adopt, nor will I assume that they will unexpectedly adopt, even if they did not want to do so.
Fine only couples raising children, hetero, or homosexual, should have government protections granted by marriage.
When can I go get my marriage license. Both of us have given birth to children.
Absolutely not. YOU introduced the idea that child-bearing was a driving force for legal marriage. So, until a legal marriage requires procreation, this is a logical dead-end.
This is a specious and lazy argument to make. Men and women make babies together, two gay men do not.
We are not going to turn traditional marriage on its head to please the gay marriage crowd. Now you want us to become inhumane, just to justify traditional marriage to the likes of you.
To me, if a gay or lesbian couple adopt a baby together, and wish to raise it together as a family, then I'm all for giving them equal benefits and rights as any married couple.
However, the only way a gay couple can have a child is if they purposely go out and adopt one. I'm not going to consider all gays as married, and assume they will all run out and adopt a baby, or suddenly and spontaneously adopt one against their wishes. A man and a woman can have a baby even if they do not want one, and were using some form of contraception.
Marriage is for a man and a woman, because even if a man and woman do not desire to have children, mother nature can surprise them with a baby anyway. This is not the case with two gay men.
If people were always 100% sure they would never make a baby if they didn't want to, then yes, government's involvement with marriage would only have applied to couples with children. But that is not reality.
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.
