Explaining Same Sex Marriage

Ad hominem is the tool of the weak and failed argument.

 

No actually a 'Civil Union' is unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS in 1954 said that if something is separate, it is inherently unequal. There for if Civil Unions are supposes to be separate but equal to marriage then they are unconstitutional.

This is about EQUALITY.

 

Not when you are explaining something to someone

hint: its not an arguement then!

 

Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

 

1st--it's not "discrimination" in the sense that there is unequal protection.

2nd--male and female unions are the basis of the family unit due to the ability to procreate. The family unit is a stabilizing force in society.

The government should support stabilizing forces, but should mostly keep its hands out of social issues--being least restrictive while offering support to things that benefit society as a whole.

 

I think my above post does that. if not, let me know.

To not allow an older male/female couple to marry would be on the basis of age or health. that would be a different sort of discrimination.

 

Again, Procreation has NOTHING to do with marraige.

Same old failed arguements over and over and over and...............................

 

No--it's about money, really.

 

But not allowing homosexuals to marry isnt discrimination?

 

Yet another smoke screen. THis has nothing to do with money

 

No--as I said--they CAN marry--just not a person of the same sex--LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE!

 

REALLY. Then why do you want to get married at all? Just live with the person and get a contract drawn up.

 

Again: marriage does not seem to be about procreation. Otherwise the state would only allow for people to marry, who've proven their fertility and promise to procreate within a given time. It doesn't.


And of course it's discrimination. For example an aquaintance of mine recently married an Egyptian. The marriage contract in which they take on responsibility for each other, allows them to live together either here or in Egypt.
If people would not be allowed to get the same opportunity to take on responsibility for each other and live together in one country only because they are of the same gender that would quite obviously be discrimination.

 

I guess you simply do not, cannot or will not understand equality.

 

Why would a homosexual person marry a member of the opposite sex?

Care to have a legitimate conversation?

 

That would be unnecessarily restrictive. Marriage existed before our government decided to endorse it, you know. And marriage has always been for social stability and family ties through parantage--only recently has romantic love become a part of marriage. It isn't a necessity, though it is a nice thing.

is the couple male/female? I don't see your point.

 

Well, if I wrote a will leaving all my money to a random person I happen to live with, my nearest relatives would still be entitled to a considerate amount of my money after I die.

As it is I don't even need to write a will (or other contracts) because this package deal called marriage makes the person I happen to live with my closest relative.

 

I do understand the argument, but do not agree with it. The very definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It is the foundation for starting and raising a family. The institution was created to establish strong family relationships and unity as well as the roles of the parents and children.

Adam and Steve cannot create a family, therefore, marriage is not the appropriate word to use for their union.

Homophobia is a made up word. If it is a real word, why is heterophobia not a word? It is interesting to note that up until recently, homosexuality was considered a mental illness.

 

I don't know--to share a life together and share expenses and responsibilities?
Maybe they both want children even though they are not sexually compatible. They can still have kids and live married share their lives and love each other even if they don't have hot passionate sex.

It's ridiculous to be so fixated on the pleasures of sex that you forget what love is. It's sad, really, IMO.

 

Would it be unnecessarily restrictive? Why if as you say marriages purpose is procreation?
However the "has always been" sheds some light behind your personal reasons for opposing Same Sex marriages. Traditions however should not form the basis of lawmaking, logical reasoning on the basis of a given constitution should.
Otherwise I might still have to ask my husband for his permission before I take on a job as tradition had it in my country. Logical reasoning has abandoned that law.

The point is that if heterosexual couples from two different nations are given the opportunity to live together via the privileges of marriage, homosexual couples ought to be given the same opportunity.
In countries where homosexual marriages are not allowed, homosexual couples are not given that opportunity. Which constitutes discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

So you would leave your beloved partner, who for whichever reasons you can't have children with, and instead marry someone you kind of like?
Sounds a bit hard-hearted to me.

 

You clearly have no understanding of what homosexuality is.

Yor ignornace is not my problem, so please do not make it my problem.

 

Adam and Steve can find a surrogate mother and have a family just like heteros can. Just more creatures of the mind clogging the system here.

Yep and now Homophobia is not only a word, but it is considered a mental illness. You really should keep up with the times. You do know Woodstock was like 40 years right?

 

An ability to procreate does not determine what constitutes a family unit. Nor does actual procreation.

A family consists of two people who knit their lives and fortunes together in a commitment to take care of each other. Legal marriage creates legal kinship, making those who marry family to each other. Ever heard the terms "son-in-law" or "daughter-in-law"? They designate an expansion of the family to include those whose kinship is created through the law; through legal recognition of the marriage contract. Personally speaking, we wouldn't think of excluding someone's spouse from a family function simply because they aren't biologically related to us - we very much consider them additional members of the family.

My mother would also tell you she has a daughter-at-heart; a woman she considers a member of the family and like a daughter to her, even though she has no biological or legal ties to our family. She was my sister's college friend whose own family was not sufficiently supportive of her needs, so we took her in. The point being that while there may be legal definitions of family for purposes of government, they do not control what people define as family on a social basis. A same-sex couple, married or not, may still be considered family by some. My mother considers my husband her son-at-heart as well - even though we're unable to have a legal marriage in our state.

Two people who marry each other are the most basic part of the family unit, whether or not they procreate or raise children at all. The concept of family is not a one size fits all. A family is not defined by two people having sex and thereby making a baby. It is defined by commitment and caring.

A family is not defined by the sex of those who come together in marriage.

Whether or not two people produce babies together, their caring commitment is a stabilizing force.

Two adults acting as parents to the children they raise under their care are a family - regardless of whether or not they produced those children together. It is not who produced the children that creates stability. It is the commitment and caring of the people raising those children.

Hence, a committed same-sex couple is just as much a family as any opposite-sex couple. A committed same-sex couple raising children is just as much a family as any opposite-sex couple raising children. Both are a stabilizing force.

What is not a stabilizing force in society? Ignorance, prejudice, hatred...to name but a few. When such things are written into law, the detriment to society is profound.

Yes, it should - including same-sex unions and the family's formed thereby.

A contradictory statement. The least restrictive solution offering support to that which benefits society as a whole is to extend marriage recognition to the unions of same-sex couples. Denying them equal recognition and an equal stake in society is very much an interference in social issues.

 

exactly the same as endorsing a heterosexual union.