Marriage isn't a human right

Of course the presence of a sexual relationship is irrelevant. No one is even talking about that. It matters not if a couple has an exclusive sexual relationship, has an open relationship of if they have no sex, it has nothing to do with marriage. I actually agree with you. However, I’m confused as to why we’re even talking about it in relation to who can marry. I'm also confused by your statement that "ANY two people whether they are sexual or not could benefit from the advantages of a stable home formed by a marriage". yet you seem to be opposed to SSM.

 

Seems to me that we're beating the old dead horse here. The question of what is a human right and whether or not marriage is such a right is an interesting intellectual exercise but not relevant to the issue of marriage equality. With marriage equality, there is one thing and one thing only that matters....the question of whether or not gay people are being denied equal protection under the law and if so, is doing so necessary to protect the greater society good? Therefor, I'm going to try to shake things up here and inject a different issue, one that I think will show just how ridiculous and futile the fight against equality is:

While we’re debating the issue of same sex marriage, it become apparent that most people are not even aware of a related issue: Intersexual people. The fact is that there are really more than just two sexes, so the marriage issue is even more complex that most people know. Intersexual people, born with characteristics of both male and female are a reality. This condition can range from subtle hormonal and chromosomal “abnormalities” to internal and outward physical signs that the person is not clearly male or female. They may or may not be readily identified at birth, and may not be apparent until puberty. Traditionally, the medical response has been to channel these unusual but real people into being a male or female. This has been done medically, psychologically and surgically. One problem is that we, and the medical community have a poor understanding of the consequences of this approach. There may be implications related to trans-sexuality, gender confusion, mental health issues, as well as same sex attractions.

Now before I go on, it’s important that I say that I am in no way saying that gayness can or should be explained in biological terms. Gay and lesbian people should be afforded all of the rights and respect of “straight” people regardless of biology. The point is only that SOME same sex attractions MAY be related to intersexual issues. There is so much that we don’t understand.
Having said that, I want to call attention to the fact, that there is a growing community of intersexual people who reject the societal insistence that they identify as either male or female. In addition, there is a movement within the medical and mental health fields that supports that view and no longer rush to find a medical or surgical “ cure “. Now the professionals are not advocating that these children be raised as anything other than male or female, but some are making the choice to be out about their differences. Many now believe that there are as many as five different sexes-varying degrees of maleness and femaleness- and that those people should be allowed to be who and what they are without society putting a traditional gender label on .

So, that brings us back to the marriage issue and who can marry who because, as the intersexual movement grows, this will surly come up. What will happen when an intersexual person, who refused to be pigeon holed into a traditional sexual category, wants to marry a male, or a female or another intersexual person. How will we decide who can and cannot marry? Would it be OK for a person who is more male than female to marry someone who is more female than male, but not if they are equally male and female. How would that be measured and who would decide? You may laugh and ridicule this now, but mark my word, the issue will come up and it will have to be dealt with. I submit to you that the only solution is to allow any two people who want to marry each other to do so. What’s the big deal?



.

 

I said only heterosexual "COUPLES" procreate, not "people". Its a biological fact.

The government isnt concerned with married couples procreating. They are concerned with unmarried couples doing so. By encouraging all heterosexual couples to marry, leads to fewer children being born to single mothers with absent or unknown fathers.
Its easy to detect the presence of a man and woman. It is impossible to determine the presence of a man and woman able to procreate with each other, with much accuracy. And as far as couples who dont intend to procreate, MOST pregnancies are to couples who did not intend to procreate. Government has just as much interest in the well being of children from unplanned pregnancies as they do planned pregnancies. But all f them are still exclusively among heterosexual couples.

 

No, gay people are not being denied equal protection. Two heterosexual men would be just as excluded from marriage, even though they are heterosexuals. The single mother and grandmother, down the street raising their children / grandchildren for over a decade are excluded from marriage even though they are both heterosexual. Gays arent excluded from marriage, only heterosexual couples are included in marriage in states with traditional marriage. NOT because heterosexual couples are not homosexual but instead because only heterosexual couples have the capacity to procreate

 

I dont think the government has any business using discriminatory law to dictate the level of "respect" given to others.

 

Actually the law presumes a sexual relationship in all 50 states. In three, the marriage isnt complete until the marriage is consummated through sexual relations.

 

I must say, I’m always amazed at the creative but inane diversionary claptrap that you people come up with. Again the issue is: Do gay couples have the same rights as committed, married heterosexual couples and the answer is NO! Therefor DO NOT enjoy equal protection under the law. The mother and grandmother can’t get married because they are close relatives…NOT because they cannot reproduce. Gays are NOT asking for the right to marry relatives. Two hetero men could get married…..no one is asking if they are gay or not…the issue is SAME SEX marriage. As I said, the reproduction issue is idiotic. Did the lawyers defending DOM and Prop 8 before SCOTUS invoke it? Did Christies lawyers in New Jersey invoke it? NO because they would have had their asses laughed out of court. I asked you before and I’ll ask again: Should hetero couples who cannot or will not reproduce be excluded from marriage?? You really can’t answer that can you?

 

Watch the silly man dance. Your moving the goal posts.

 

Using your simplistic logic- do unmarried couples have the same rights as married couples and the answer is NO! Therefor DO NOT enjoy equal protection of the law.

 

You don't seem to know where the goal posts are

- - - Updated - - -

That's right they don't....but they can get married. Keep trying

 

I actually don't know what you're talking about but I do know that you're not making much of a case against marriage equality. You just keep throwing a bunch of (s)(h)(*)(t) at the wall and hoping that some will stick. Keep it coming. You said that my argument was "simplistic" right? Well it is simple yes. I've been very clear and consistent regarding the issue of equality. You. for your part keep making it much more complicated than it is for the purpose of confusing people. It's not working

 

---We have the prerogative to determine what is and is not a human right.

 

Marriage is a basic civil right

 

Then you should have no problem with statewide bans on firearms

 

No state requires sex in order to marry

 

And what the hell does encouraging hetero couples to marry have to do with the right of gays to marry? Do you think that if gays are not allowed to marry that fewer children will be born to single people and that more will have a traditional mom and dad??....keep dreaming

 

Dixon is one of the biggest trolls in this forum. His procreation argument has been destroyed so many times in so many threads I've lost count. Eventually he'll bring up presumption of paternity statutes to try to support his retarded argument, then he'll cite court cases limiting marriage to heterosexuals which have been overturned or the states in which those cases were tried now have legalized same sex marriage.

The stupidity of the argument is beyond belief

 

Thank you! I'm done with him. Let him stew in his own juice.

 

I know more heterosexual couples who choose not to legally marry because they don't like the structure of the legal system.

 

A bond between a man and a woman to raise a child properly is a requirement of nature. Marriage is just a man made reflection of that bond. Human babies are born very fragile and require more time than any other species to reach self functioning. The mother is not so easily able to raise a child without the aid of the male. Sure times have changed and society has changed but the idea of a man and a woman forming a life long bond as the ideal way to raise a child has not.

 

And what you're saying is that if someone isn't handed a slip of paper that has the word "married" on it, then they "aren't able" to raise a child?

Hm wonder how all those native American couples prior to the colonization were able to have stable relationships and raise children - since they had no written language, and no one to hand them a slip of paper with the word "married" printed on it?

- - - Updated - - -

Then why can't two brothers get married? Even if incest isn't legal in that state, if "sex isn't required" - then let's just say the brothers are roommates, and want to marry just for tax incentives - so why deny them that right?

This is why it shouldn't be recognized as a "right" (just a privilege granted at the sole discretion of the state), since it lead to absurd scenarios or lawsuits like this.

 

Marriage is just a reflection of the long term bond. Besides there were marriages in native American tribes.

 

And they had homosexuals and bisexuals who could marry, adopt children and take important social roles in many tribes of both genders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

 

Well if you want to live like a savage I suppose you can.