Explaining Same Sex Marriage Pt. 2

Original thread:
http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/215209-explaining-same-sex-marriage.html

So, we have already established that same sex marriage does not equate with marring children, animals, dead bodies, or toasters.

We have established that same sex marriage offers no more of a benefit to society than heterosexual marriage (i.e. they are equal).

We have established that procreation is irrelevant and one of the most poorly formulated anti-civil rights arguments I have ever heard.

We have established that same sex marriage is a social contract. Legally, it is nothing more, nothing less.

Are there any other arguments to be had?

 

that much of what you believe you have established is rediculous.


for example: marriage as the term was initiall created was for lineage protection. Hence procreation is relevant.



ie.... Homosexual Marriage is an OXYMORON of terms.

That is what has been 'ESTABLISHED' as FACT!


So now explaining same sex marriage is easy: It's a stupid pursuit by wingnuts that want financial benefits and to be recognized as being somebody, when we all are somebody and the financial benefits can be legally gained in many other legal methods.

heck, a person gave bequeath to their dogs now a days, if they NEED to.

 

Children are not a requirement of marriage.

Procreation is irrelevant.

 

perhaps do a history search on the term


Here is basic WIKI


History of marriage by culture

Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[12] Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access



men married women to make sure, the children were THEIRS for the lineage protection of inheritance.


It like making sure, you are not the milkmans child,based on a commitment of 'marriage'!

Or notice the FIRST definition:

Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriageCached -

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law



Just because terms have changed and now marriage is for tax benefits to a huge population within the USA does not mean the 'husband and wife' descriptions of the bride and groom are not based on man and women. Nor does it not have the same scope of the man and women, making children as that is how 'procreation' exists.

The bond of man and women and the very use of the sexual parts, by nature itself are for 'procreation'

even if people like to use them to do their dogs!

 

Which may be relevant if procreation was required.

It is not.

I know many married couples who do not have nor do they want children.

Yet they are still married and enjoying the legal benefits.

The procreation argument is irrelevant.

 

Since gay people have children all the time, either through adoption or alternative methods, JUST LIKE HETEROSEXUALS, they should also be allowed to marry so as to protect their 'lineage'.

So whether or not the procreation argument is irrelevant or not the point is homosexuals do in fact procreate and obtain legal guardianship of children all the time. Do a homosexuals' children not deserve the same 'lineage' protection as heterosexuals' children do?

 

I don't see why government doesn't just get out of the "marriage" business and handle everything with plain old contract law.

 

Hah, sounds good to me.

But then again you rarely ever see the proponents of either side of this issue mention this. Why? Because people love to suckle on the teet of the government.

 

That's what I'm saying. The homophobes don't want gays to get the benefits, and the gays want the homophones to acknowledge their relationships as "marriages".

Just drop the freakin word marriage. Two people can get together and join into a contract where they can adopt kids and open a checking account. If you want to get married, go to church. Problem solved.

 

If only the majority felt this way, so many problems solved. xD

 

I guess you 2 are new here.


Bunches of people have suggested the same thing


i personally agree unequivocally. It dont matter who people are doinkin.


But i aint explaining to a kid that same sex intercourse is normal?

Likewise, to explain same sex marriage is like trying to fit a square plug into a round hole................ because HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE Is an OXYMORON of terms.

 

If procreation is irrelevant, why related couples can't get married?

 

i gave kudos for that post.

ie.. each can contribute to pure understanding and when each begin to understand their capabilities, then liars will be put to the test

and of course, lies always fail over time!


For example: the only EXPLANATION for same sex marriage is that selfish people are more concerned about themselves, than 'others'

 

How is this a relevant question? Answer: religion.

How about we base the question on reality?

People are married everyday.

Everyday people who have no children nor intention of having children are married.

The aspect of children is not a requirement of marriage.

The argument of procreation is irrelevant because it contradicts reality and what is in common practice. Also, failing to cite any law that requires procreation for marriage.

Now that we have completely dismissed that argument, would you have another?

 

Before you try to dismiss valid argument, you have to explain why marriage is not allowed to related couples. I guess you know the answer, because they might procreate and we don't want them to do that.
But if procreation is irrelevant to marriage why related couples are not permitted to get married? Why we don't we just prohibit the procreation.
It is obvious that you have no answer.

Sorry, your attempt to dismiss logical argument has failed miserably.

 

Selfish people? Are you referring to the majority who denies the minority equal rights on religious grounds?

If that is the case, we can agree.

 

Why is it not allowed? I already answered; religion. I believe it was in the 1800's when the Catholic Church pushed the laws barring such marriages, even marriages between cousins on religious grounds. The unions are still barred, even though the rate of birth defects between first cousins match those of women giving birth in their 40's.

I am sorry that you must resort to such a red herring. A question that neither you nor anyone else can answer directly and honestly is why people are allowed to be married without the requirement of procreation. If that were the intent of marriage there would be a requirement, however there is none.

The religious arguments against gay marriage make more sense than the masquerades used in their place.

 

Is somebody forcing you to explain same sex intercourse to some kids?

There are in fact multiple definitions of marriage. But I didn't realize the dictionary was the leader in making and enforcing laws especially considering definitions of words can and do in fact change over time?
http://ezinearticles.com/?-Etymology--How-Words-Change-Over-Time&id=12709

If your problem is simply with the word marriage being handed out by the government this can simply be fixed by allowing the government to only hand out 'civil unions', including to heterosexuals. And then if they want to be married under God in a church they may call it a marriage. Or if they just want to call it a marriage just because they want to then they can. And nobody can stop them.

Or as said before the government revokes everyone's marriage licenses and all the benefits with them and nobody gets special privileges based on their relationship status.

 

So you contradicted yourself saying that procreation has no relevance to marriage, correct?
I think you are trying to mislead yourself.

 

I did not contradict myself.

Explain to me, slowly, what relevance it has if there is no requirement to procreate.

 

What you are talking about? Marriage assumes procreation, you just had confirmed it in previous posts. That is why close relative are not allowed to get married, because marriage and procreation is linked together for thousands of years.

 

he dont comprehend that related people making babies, perhaps conceive more people like him.

 

brokeback mountain opened that door all over the networks

the thread is on esplaining..... And i aint lying to no kid to make idiots happy.

Same sex intercourse, aint normal. Period!

ie... more people born with a cleft palate than gay and they aint considered normal until corrected.

and a female dog too

laws dont enforce much

and the dictionary aint the law

heck you should see the stupid definition of the term 'sexual orientation'

Everyone already knows if a baby has a winkie, he is a boy and the boy part goes into the girl part for the next generation per the 'sexual orientation' of the biology, for that life..........

but not according to the dictionary and idiots rewriting the terms to fit their 'desires' and not a law of the land to stop liars from making fools of mankind

what?

OK

many churches will marry any one with enough money paid in advance.

happens all over the place.

i like that one.


No babies, no tax advantages................... (perfect) Get that one passed and we could do something for the deficit

 

How does it? So many people don't.

You do not have an argument reality contradicts your point.

So unless you have a way of requiring procreation for marriage, I suggest moving on.

 

People have children in and out of marriage.

People refrain from having children in and out of marriage.

You do not have an argument.