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 have a condition that causes recurrent miscarriages. Do I have a right to be married? I have 4 children, one of which is adopted...is my son as much my child as my bio daughters? Even if we are not the same race?
Infertility is real, and it is not rare. One of my daughters was born through IF treatment....was that against family values?
Find some consistency in your argument......
Man + woman = designed to produce children:
Man + Man = Not possible, ever.
Woman + Woman = Not possible, ever.
Man and Woman may have problems producing naturally through the normal process, yet they are built to have children. If we are to get technical, a mans sperm and a woman's egg from these two very same people could technically be joined through medical help.
Homosexuals can not achieve this as they do not both contain the ability to do so be it normally or medically.
I find this silly that the most basic concepts of this relationship has to be taught to you.
Okay, I guess Nomander has me on his ignore list and won't respond to anything I say, polite or otherwise. Well, whatever.
I don't, unless I missed it, you didn't refer to me specifically and I have had my hands full already discussing with two others. Its it the emotional response comment?
Edit: nm, I saw my name in there, normally I look for the quotes. I will respond to it.
1) How are both sides not using emotion in their arguments/justifications?
2) Nomander, what if you were gay or bi? Certainly one should not make a decision based solely on something like that, but it might be productive to entertain that question. IMO.
1) Some may be emotional on both sides, but I do not believe all are emotional in their arguments. I have not been so.
2) I am not sure what you are referring to in that question. Could you explain more specifically for me?
Man + woman = designed to produce children:
Man + Man = Not possible, ever.
Woman + Woman = Not possible, ever.
Man and Woman may have problems producing naturally through the normal process, yet they are built to have children. If we are to get technical, a mans sperm and a woman's egg from these two very same people could technically be joined through medical help.
Homosexuals can not achieve this as they do not both contain the ability to do so be it normally or medically.
I find this silly that the most basic concepts of this relationship has to be taught to you.
Again with the insults.....I have not insulted you, why you find the need to debase me, I cannot understand.
But -- you are saying that even though hetero couples may need help via IF treatments, the fact that the anatomy is there (whether working or not) justifies the whole premise of marriage. I would imagine you would include adoption into this as well?
I am sorry, but I disagree with such a narrow perception. Of course male and female make babies and male/male or female/female cannot without help in some fashion. But, in times not so distant hetero couples who were unable to conceive were told it was gods will and deal with it. Adoption was also fairly rare as it was believed that 'blood will tell' i.e. things such as criminality were genetic and not many people were willing to chance it. As for interracial adoption -- forget it! It was not at all accepted.
Now, these IF treatments make biological parenthood possible for people who were unable to do it alone via sperm donors, egg donors and surragate mothers. Adoption is no longer considered a dirty family secret and interracial adoptions are fairly common place.
What was once standard has expanded to include new advances in science as well as advances in sociology. Two generations ago my son would never have been considered my son because of our different races. Now, noone care. That is an advance in societal thinking.....that was growth....that was expanding the terms 'son' and 'adoption' to inlcude children who could never 'pass' as biological.
I for one am very glad that terms such as family is not set in stone.
You don't think that clinging to a definition could be perceived as being emotional? I think everyone is being emotional about it.
Why would it be? Personally I think it a retention of sanity. It is logical within legal pursuits to denote the difference for many reasons I have mentioned. I think it is emotional to demand that it be changed, especially when it has no bearing other than the legal classification and organization of its purpose. Rights can still be achieved, and that is the purpose is it not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by buildings_and_bridges
I'm asking if you would feel differently about this is if you were gay or bisexual.
No, because I am not "feeling" the matter, but logically assessing its merits. It would make no difference as it is irrelevant to the issues I speak of. Then again, I am a person who does not seek others approval, I do not require others to accept me. So my main concern if I were as such would be to focus on obtaining the rights I needed to operate as any other couple of normal means. Civil Unions would achieve this and that is all I would care about in your hypothetical. I don't need a legal documents "wording" to make me feel happy. /shrug
Homosexuals can not have children, they can have children with a person of the same sex, but not with each other. This is a simple biological fact and I think it devious you attempt to argue it as you do. Bob and Bill can not produce a child. Bob can go to Sally and they can produce a child, yet this will not be Bob and Bill's child, rather it will be Bob and Sally's child to which Bob and Bill attempt to claim it as their own.
As a pictorial example of such:
Bob + Bill---- Bob + Sally
\-----/--------- \---- /
nothing ---------Child
Homosexual couples do not produce family trees, they produce dead ends in them. The trees they may create in your devious example is with another person and is not representative of their actual relationship.
Maybe you confuse the matter with a couple who can not have a child, yet uses their own parts to create as such through a surrogate? You do realize that even a barren, old, or couple who can not produce of their own ability, can still through medical science achieve this, yet this can not be achieved between the same sexes. It is a simple fact of nature. Your example is flawed.
Traditional families produce their own children, this is why they call it "traditional", what you are describing is a "modern" family (and even by the true original definition of family, it is not traditionally one either as this is not a union of bloodlines, a creation of a "family tree"). A traditional family also contains a male and female component within a proper setting to which the child develops with the balanced influence of a man and a woman's elements. Many studies have come to believe that it is important for the child to have both elements in their raising. They do not claim it is a requirement, but that it gives a more balanced raising of the child to experience this development from each sex.
These are values that are traditional. Notice that a single divorced mother or father raising a child is not a "traditional family" either. The values to which a traditional family is created, to which traditional values are brought are through the basic formation of a family as is intended by nature. Homosexual's do not propagate the species, they are a deviate of the natural process.
What's devious about it? Aren't you the one saying gays shouldn't marry because they can't produce children? Who's the devious one here? The simple fact is, one can choose whether one wants to physically have children or not. It has nothing to do w/traditional family values. You STILL haven't answered the question, you're stuck on a non-issue. Is this the only weapon you have against allowing gays to marry? It's weak, like I said before. You haven't been able to prove what a traditional family value is, why not?
Again with the insults.....I have not insulted you, why you find the need to debase me, I cannot understand.
But -- you are saying that even though hetero couples may need help via IF treatments, the fact that the anatomy is there (whether working or not) justifies the whole premise of marriage. I would imagine you would include adoption into this as well?
I am sorry, but I disagree with such a narrow perception. Of course male and female make babies and male/male or female/female cannot without help in some fashion. But, in times not so distant hetero couples who were unable to conceive were told it was gods will and deal with it. Adoption was also fairly rare as it was believed that 'blood will tell' i.e. things such as criminality were genetic and not many people were willing to chance it. As for interracial adoption -- forget it! It was not at all accepted.
Now, these IF treatments make biological parenthood possible for people who were unable to do it alone via sperm donors, egg donors and surragate mothers. Adoption is no longer considered a dirty family secret and interracial adoptions are fairly common place.
What was once standard has expanded to include new advances in science as well as advances in sociology. Two generations ago my son would never have been considered my son because of our different races. Now, noone care. That is an advance in societal thinking.....that was growth....that was expanding the terms 'son' and 'adoption' to inlcude children who could never 'pass' as biological.
I for one am very glad that terms such as family is not set in stone.
*chuckle*
Look up logical fallacies please. You spin them out like you were working at a clothing factory.
Each objection you make is that of someone making "excuses", desperately looking for some angle to come in with. If I get testy on this issue, it has nothing to do with the topic and everything to do with the way a person argues it. You are arguing in a devious manner, one that refuses to accept when they reach an invalid strain in their position. You keep on pushing with it twisting and twisting, applying subjective use of the issues to obtain some self justified position.
If you want to say that you understand what I am saying, but think it shouldn't matter, then that's fine. You can take the subjective reasoning stance on an issue I am applying objective reasoning and I will let it go and this discussion will be over. You do not though, just like your twisted use of definitions, you twist arguments to achieve the same effect.
How about we just agree to disagree and end this here? Fair enough?
What's devious about it? Aren't you the one saying gays shouldn't marry because they can't produce children? Who's the devious one here? The simple fact is, one can choose whether one wants to physically have children or not. It has nothing to do w/traditional family values. You STILL haven't answered the question, you're stuck on a non-issue. Is this the only weapon you have against allowing gays to marry? It's weak, like I said before. You haven't been able to prove what a traditional family value is, why not?
Can a male and male produce a child "between the two" with or without medical help? Can a Woman and Woman do the same "between the two" with or without medical help?
A man and a woman "between them" can with or without medical help. The point is, they can either way with only a medical issue being the contingency. A homosexual couple can not at all, ever.
As for devious, I am talking about your attempt to pick so far into the details so you can proclaim a valid point. Logic doesn't work that way, reasoning does not work that way, arguments if sound and valid do not work that way. You fail to see this because it disrupts your arguments position. Rather than start over, create valid premises and come to a new conclusion, you just ignore they are invalid and come up with excuses to still proclaim your conclusion sound and valid. It is not. /shrug
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.
