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.
Then why are heteros allowed to marry if one is sterile, or they have no desire to reproduce? I know several married couples who either never had children (too old now) or have no desire to have children. So marriage for them is a bond between two people who love each other and support each other through life. No "blood lines" involved.
Like I said to Sag, thats a straw man. I didn't claim that. The fact that a car might be broken doesn't change the fact that it is still a car.
A male and a male (nor female and female) can not in "Any way, shape, or form" combine to produce anything. Yet, you probably saw I said that anyway, but didn't want to respond with it in context because it didn't make your response look good.
Besides, this is why they won't get what they want. You fight a position with logic and rational claims, not what they are doing.
Claiming inequality because they won't change the meaning of a word is not rational. Claiming inequality while ignoring the much easier steps to achieve that to chase nonsense is not logical. The tools are there. The option to achieve what is claimed is there and most people would have no issues with it. This however is not a rational claim and so thats why it isn't passed through without issue or gaining support from everyone.
Like I said to Sag, thats a straw man. I didn't claim that. The fact that a car might be broken doesn't change the fact that it is still a car.
A male and a male (nor female and female) can not in "Any way, shape, or form" combine to produce anything. Yet, you probably saw I said that anyway, but didn't want to respond with it in context because it didn't make your response look good.
Besides, this is why they won't get what they want. You fight a position with logic and rational claims, not what they are doing.
Claiming inequality because they won't change the meaning of a word is not rational. Claiming inequality while ignoring the much easier steps to achieve that to chase nonsense is not logical. The tools are there. The option to achieve what is claimed is there and most people would have no issues with it. This however is not a rational claim and so thats why it isn't passed through without issue or gaining support from everyone.
In that case and by that logic, it sounds like it should be outlawed for people who are undoubtedly sterile to be allowed to marry. Though they have the tools, these tools cannot operate correctly, so as far as continuing the bloodlines goes, they are as competent as a homosexual couple. To continue with the car analogy...I guess a car that can no longer function is no good for someone who needs it to get to work. It's a pile of metal and just because we can still call it a car by definition doesn't really mean all that much.
Additionally, I'm not sure that continuing a bloodline is really the purpose of marriage, as you say, and if so, I don't see why the endeavor to change a definition is "idiocy."
I think homosexuality is something people are born with. They should have every right to pursue happiness like the heterosexuals. That being said, a country with strong families is critical to the success of America. A child needs a mother and a father. 2 men or 2 women can't give that. There are many terrible heterosexual parents and many great homosexual couples who would make great parents. But you have to go with the whole. As a whole, a man and a woman as parents don't confuse a child.
I have no problem with gay marriage, just gay couples adopting children.
Well I'm a gay parent (egg donor/surrogacy) and I know others. The children of gay parents I see are as normal as any others. They aren't confused. And my parent's heterosexuality never "confused" me. I had nothing but heterosexuality for role models and examples.
I think anti-gay-parenting people fail to recognize that in gay relationships, whether two men or two women, the same aspects of masculinity and femeninity as you find in a heterosexual couple also exist. It's not like two straight dudes trying to raise kids in a filthy house, eating out of cans, drinking beer and watching sports every night.
Claiming inequality because they won't change the meaning of a word is not rational.
I'm not sure how rational it is to insist that civil unions but not marriage are permissible, either, when it turns into semantics and they are essentially the same.
Like I said to Sag, thats a straw man. I didn't claim that. The fact that a car might be broken doesn't change the fact that it is still a car.
A male and a male (nor female and female) can not in "Any way, shape, or form" combine to produce anything. Yet, you probably saw I said that anyway, but didn't want to respond with it in context because it didn't make your response look good.
Besides, this is why they won't get what they want. You fight a position with logic and rational claims, not what they are doing.
Claiming inequality because they won't change the meaning of a word is not rational. Claiming inequality while ignoring the much easier steps to achieve that to chase nonsense is not logical. The tools are there. The option to achieve what is claimed is there and most people would have no issues with it. This however is not a rational claim and so thats why it isn't passed through without issue or gaining support from everyone.
That's illogical - that sterile straight people deserve to get married yet gay couples don't. And within our legal system in some states, yes, gay couples can produce children via egg/sperm donation, surrogacy, and adoption.
Gay couples are getting what they want, slowly. Full marriage in Massachusettes, domestic partnerships in many other states, adoption rights in many states, etc. Personally I don't care if you call it marriage or DP/civil union. I just don't want to be screwed on taxes and have to spend thousands on lawyers to create contracts.
I think homosexuality is something people are born with. They should have every right to pursue happiness like the heterosexuals. That being said, a country with strong families is critical to the success of America. A child needs a mother and a father. 2 men or 2 women can't give that. There are many terrible heterosexual parents and many great homosexual couples who would make great parents. But you have to go with the whole. As a whole, a man and a woman as parents don't confuse a child.
I have no problem with gay marriage, just gay couples adopting children.
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but it is only an OPINION. Many single people are parents and raise fine children, and many same sex couples raise fine children. And people who are widowed raise children. I don't think children are particularly confused by same sex parents, especially as it becomes more widespread and accepted.
There are so many children in this world who need loving homes, it's wrong to deny these children homes just because it doesn't include "one man,one women" I wish everyone would consider adoption, no decent loving human being should be denied the option to adopt a child.
Why should we promote a disease? Again, I'm not anti-gay. My cousin is gay and we get along great. Homosexuality is something not normal. We can all agree that every species is on this planet with the goal to produce offspring. Gays can not produce offspring. I'm not comparing being gay to being a pyro or other illnesses but in a way they are the same. It is a disease that people are born with. It's sad and I feel very sorry for them. Again, everyone has the right to pursue happiness. I just think we shouldn't promote something that isn't natural. Pyros have a mental illness. They can't help it. Doctors believe they have a chemical imbalance. Does that mean society should let them burn homes so they can pursue happiness? Again, I'm not comparing gay adoption to burning houses. I'm sure many gay couples would be excellent couples. I'm just saying that being gay is a disease that does not allow the human species to produce offspring. We should allow it and embrace it but we shouldn't promote it.
More importantly, it is a notation of blood lines. That is what it is for. It is to identify the blood lineage. Since homosexuals can not produce a bloodline between them, it is not marriage.
If equality in governmental recognition of right to assets, responsiblity, etc... is what is sought. This is a legal matter and should be approached on that level in order to achieve equality within that contract.
Marriage as it concerns the government is honestly just a legal (civil union) recognition of those responsibilities and rights between those people. A justice of the peace can marry someone, but they honestly are just validating a legal contract.
As I have said in previous threads concerning this topic. Focus more on the legal aspect of shared responsibility between two people and get those agreements up to par with that of a legal marriage recognition and you have things covered.
No matter how much people want it, homosexuals can not marry because they can not produce (in any way, shape, or form) a blood line. Calling it "marriage" would be an attempt to change the meaning of the word and thats plain idiocy.
Actually, you are defining marriage within a cultural concept--the ethnocentric concept of one man, one woman, with the eventual objective of children, a continuation of the bloodline of the parties involved.
First of all, you are asserting that marriage is primarily about the development and nurturing of children, and for some people that may be true. But for some people it isn’t—couples who want to remain deliberately childless, but still enjoy a lifetime commitment to one partner, or couples who are, for one biological reason or another, unable to have children and who can’t or choose not to adopt. Following your line of reasoning, these people cannot truly be legally married but must accept a partnership on par with marriage, but not marriage itself.
(As a side note, studies show that it is not straight married couples, or straight singles, no matter how devout, pro-life, or pro-family they may be, who adopt the tough to place kids in the highest numbers, but gays and lesbians. So, unless we’re talking about the development and nurturing only of the perfectly healthy, biological children, it makes sense to encourage gay marriage and parenting on behalf of the neediest of our nation’s unwanted children.)
Many cultures in the world have recognized same-sex relationships as unions or marriages for thousands of years. These include ancient Greece and Rome, dozens of African cultures (what anthropologists call “female husbands”), and Native American cultures. Same-sex marriages involving “berdaches” (men or women with cross-gender identification) were common in dozens of tribes.
In addition, many modern societies are also recognizing same-sex unions. Denmark was the first, in its registered partnership law. Dozens of other countries and provinces have followed Denmark, with laws providing same-sex couples with most or all of the legal benefits and duties of marriage.
The Netherlands is the first modern nation to recognize same-sex unions as “marriages.” Similar same-sex marriage laws have been adopted in Belgium, Canada, Spain, and South Africa.
The United States of America lags behind other industrialized nations in this area because the majority of the nation's voters seem to be dogma driven and unable to understand that our right to freedom of religion means that our laws should be based upon secular law, not those laid out in a religious text.
Why should we promote a disease? Again, I'm not anti-gay. My cousin is gay and we get along great. Homosexuality is something not normal. We can all agree that every species is on this planet with the goal to produce offspring. Gays can not produce offspring. I'm not comparing being gay to being a pyro or other illnesses but in a way they are the same. It is a disease that people are born with. It's sad and I feel very sorry for them. Again, everyone has the right to pursue happiness. I just think we shouldn't promote something that isn't natural. Pyros have a mental illness. They can't help it. Doctors believe they have a chemical imbalance. Does that mean society should let them burn homes so they can pursue happiness? Again, I'm not comparing gay adoption to burning houses. I'm sure many gay couples would be excellent couples. I'm just saying that being gay is a disease that does not allow the human species to produce offspring. We should allow it and embrace it but we shouldn't promote it.
We live in a free country so you have the right to free speech, but I disagree with your opinion and thankfully many gay couples are allowed to adopt, and hopefully future generations of children will believe in the acceptance of all people.
Do you believe pyromaniacs should be allowed to set fires if it makes them happy?
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.
