Explaining Same Sex Marriage

And homosexual couples often procreate! Also if we start allowing them to adopt it'll be even easier for them to create family units! So what's the problem???

 

No, it's not a shortcut term. You were quite clear in explaining your definition of what constitutes a family.

I disagree. You don't get to limit the definition of terms merely because they don't suit your specious argument. It's this restriction of the legal definition that is at question. So you're once again making what is essentially a circular argument.

Wow, really reaching now. I'm going to let that stand for itself without further comment.

We aren't talking about individual cases. Yet another attempt to dishonestly reframe the argument.

You think you can escape through avoidance. I don't call that skilled debate.

On the contrary, my answer is exactly what I said. I'm not interested in that which relies on distortion in purporting to show something divorced from reality.

I have no obligation to present you with anything, no matter how much you threaten to hit us with propagandist materials.

 

Not so--the government does nothing but support marriage, and MOST marriages by far will be procreative.

You keep ignoring that procreation is not inherent and it can't be forced upon same-sex couples. See above. the government does NOTHING but support marriage and most marriages will procreate.

What is the interest the government has in supporting gay marriage. there is NOTHING inherent in the gay relationship that is a benefit to society as a whole.

 

See what I said about equality being substantive, not merely procedural. Your position would negate the ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which was based on a substantive interpretation of the right to marry. And because we already know you'll go there - this isn't a comparison of race to orientation. It merely illustrates that procedural equality has already been found insufficient by the courts. The who doesn't matter in defeating your claim, so much as the what. It's a precedent that can be argued to apply to other cases not involving race.

Irrelevant.

Now who's resorting to ad hominem? Hint: That would be you.

No. I don't take orders from you.

 

How about allowing them to adopt the hundreds of thousands of unwanted children bouncing around the adoption and foster care system? For example: http://www.azcentral.com/news/azliv...10502gay-dads-ham-family-12-adopted-kids.html

 

The government doesn't have to get involved in that to have hetero-marriage still be beneficial. That is where it is least restrictive and least invasive. if NO ONE ever used alternative methods of reproduction, hetero-marriage would STILL procreate--MOST marriages do.

No--that's where I've been since the beginning. Do you think I haven't been around this block before? Please. I know your counter arguments and they don't work. Go back and you'll see that is what I've been saying since the beginning (post 22).

We're talking about marriage and the US governmental endorsement of marriage--not people.

If you want to be rude and name call, go for it. It is the weapon of the weak and defeated argument.

 

I think we need a new name for homosexual mental disorder. How about "gay identity mentally psychotic syndrome" or GIMPS? Again, with regards to gay people raising children, number one, they can't have children of their own, without having to pay a woman to carry the child to term for them, and then buying the child from her. Then the child will be raised by two men, and will never know what it means to have a mother. I think that it would be a tramatic experience for any child to be raised without a mother. Likewise for lesbians, they would be raising a child who will never experience being raised by a mother and a father. I would think it would be extremely tramatizing. This is something that you cannot possible deny the truth of, nor justify with reason. Every child deserves to be raised in a normal two parent, mother/father family. Not to mention, know the extended families of both biological parents.

 

Not with each other!

 

Not responsive. You seem to be arguing a completely different point, so you've lost me.

Can't be forced upon opposite-sex couples either, so I don't see any point to this. As for inherent, that's not required. Claiming it is without anything to support it but repetition of the argument is going to get you nowhere.

Non-argument.

False framing. It's not a question of what's inherent specifically in gay relationships, but in the commitment that people make to each other in marriage and the stability to society that flows from that. This is not a trait exclusive to opposite-sex marriages, nor even guaranteed by them, given the heterosexual divorce rate. The government promotes marriage because of those couples that will succeed in their commitments - even though the failure rate is significant.

 

http://law.yourdictionary.com/family
family legal definition
Listen
n

A group of individuals who share ties of blood, marriage, or adoption; a group residing together and consisting of parents, children, and other relatives by blood or marriage; a group of individuals residing together who have consented to an arrangement similar to ties of blood or marriage.



Would you like to retract and apologize now?

Aint that the pot calling the kettle black!

NOTE:

 

So what? They raise the children together and that's all that matters. Hell parents ADOPT kids all the time and neither had any say in that kid's procreation either. But should that matter? Shall we make adoption illegal and start forcing parents to raise their biological children only? Make it so infertile couples can only obtain their children through IVF so that they are their 100% biological children?

 

??? What are you on about? Explain how recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples would be more restrictive and invasive.

Yet another strawman - no argument was proposed that "hetero-marriage" would not be beneficial without the government's equal involvement in same-sex marriages.

Irrelevant.

Not going to oblige you. It's clear what you were arguing in the post I responded to.

Marriage, an institution requiring people. Nevermind that you were talking about procreation, which also requires people.

Making false accusations also won't improve your arguments.

 

This whole post of yours is just your flat denial--it's not any sort of argument.

The reason government supports marriage is for more than the two people involved in the marriage. I've explained it myriad times. You simply flatly deny it and name call. Repeating the same denials over and over don't make your position any stronger.

Government has NO INTEREST in gay relationships. There is nothing to benefit for society as a whole to support it, so, except in places where the hedonistic entitlement mentality reigns supreme, "gay-marriage" is a non-starter.

 

No, nothing to retract. You're continuing to ignore that the restrictions of law that limit the definition of who can marry and thereby be considered family to each other is what's at issue.

On the contrary, I answered your unreasonable demand, rather than avoiding it. You just don't like that answers you received.

 

Definition of hypocrisy:

 

It's not all that matters.

Way to totally misrepresent what I've been VERY clear about.

 

Glad I didn't hold my breath!

 

I see no point in recovering ground already trod. When you resort to repetition, those are exactly the responses you deserve and will get.

On the contrary, I agree that marriage is for more than the two people marrying, and have said as much several times. Describing an argument as bigotry is not namecalling. If you think you have a legitimate complaint, take it up with a moderator.

^ Once again stating your opinion as if it were fact.

More empty proclamation. I think we're done here.

 

Then what does matter? You seem bothered by the fact that that homosexual couples cannot procreate together. Why should that matter so long as they are raising their children together and being good parental figures for them? Elaborate please?

It's the only conclusion I could come to based on that very short response. Perhaps if you elaborate why it's so important that couples sexually procreate with one another then I will understand better.

 

Marriage is absolutely a law. It is codified in the statutes of all 50 states, the territories, the possessions, and the District of Columbia and it is defined in great specificity and detail. And the law is applied in a discriminatory fashion in most states, which is against the law.

 

That is correct. In my view, government has no business involving itself in the personal lives of its citizens to such extent.

 

What other laws do you think should be passed if you believe they should exist to "benefit society?"

 

Well, here we agree. The government's only business should be protecting the inalienable rights of the citizens.

I'd be very careful about advocating laws to "benefit society." That slope gets very slippery very fast. Better, in my view, to let consenting adult citizens live their lives free of any undue encumberance and stick to the task of defending the Constitution, paving the roads, and printing the money... But once we let the benefit genie out of the bottle, he is very hard to stuff back in. Best to keep him bottled up lest he start "benefiting" you in ways you never dreamed of. That's the thing about the law of unintended consequences: the consequences can be so... um... unintended. "Careful what you wish for" as a man far wiser than me once said.

 

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

 

My birth date is stated on my marriage-certificate. I assume the birth date of over 50/60/70 year olds who marry is on theirs too. By nature these people will not procreate eventually. Yet the state allows them to marry.

It's rather obvious that your view on this issue is tainted by religious or traditional feelings and preconceptions. I'm not saying your religious and traditional feelings are necessarily wrong (even though I don't share them on this particular topic). I'm saying they shouldn't govern the law-making of a secular state that bound itself to a constitution under which all citizens are granted equal rights.

Immigration laws. If a US-citizen falls in love with a foreigner of the opposite sex, marriage is the easiest if not the only way for them to live together in the US. A US-citizen who falls in love with a foreigner of the same sex should be given equal rights. Anything else is discrimination.

They're not asking for special privileges. They just want the same privileges that heterosexuals get.