For those against gay marriage would you ban divorce?

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Who cares? Gay people will not produce children whether they are married or not. Denying them the ability to marry does not mean more or less children.

See Melissa Etheridge and Tammy Etheridge as a reference for that one.

 

[Bird222]

You know in a way all these 'anti-gay marriage' people sound like America haters. America is supposed to be about individual liberties. It's not supposed to be about liking everything everyone else does. Just because you think it's 'icky' doesn't mean people shouldn't have rights. I am sure there is plenty of crap that people do that I don't like, but that doesn't mean I want to make a law that THEY can't do it. That would be un-American to me.

 

[Atreus21]

Well we're not really getting at what I'm asking. I don't really care as to what would be equal in this case, I want to know what YOU believe. Do you personally believe that gays should be barred from marriage due to their inability to produce offspring?

Yes.

If you do then it seems like you support applying the same standards to straight couples. With this in mind, in states where gay marriage is banned, would you support a new law being passed to ban sterile straight couples from being married if we can find a suitable way to test for it?

Yes.

I don't think this argument makes sense. You said that you are not against artificial insemination, but you would not allow lesbian couples to marry because they would need to be inseminated. Since we are talking about the restriction of a fundamental right, you have to be able to prove considerable harm to society in order to restrict it. How are you proving harm to society by having couples engage in a practice you support?

I don't see the correlation. I don't have anything against artificial insemination.

My argument is thus:

A homosexual couple cannot produce children biologically. This is important because such an inability creates problems should the couple adopt/artificially inseminate. These problems are (1) Biological parents have an innate relationship to their children, whereas adoptive parents do not, and (2) I think all convention and nature have indicated that a couple made up of two of the opposite sex are the ideal parents for a child. It seems intuitive to me that a child ought to be thus exposed.

My opinion is that society should not sanction an institution that, 100% of the time, does not meet either of these conditions.

 

[fskimospy]

My argument is thus:

A homosexual couple cannot produce children biologically. This is important because such an inability creates problems should the couple adopt/artificially inseminate. These problems are (1) Biological parents have an innate relationship to their children, whereas adoptive parents do not, and (2) I think all convention and nature have indicated that a couple made up of two of the opposite sex are the ideal parents for a child. It seems intuitive to me that a child ought to be thus exposed.

Well I'm trying to find where the argument to ban a funfamental right is. Saying 'these parents aren't ideal' doesn't come even remotely close to that standard. Imagine if you restricted free speech on grounds a speech wasn't ideal. The two rights are identical in their protection by the Constitution.

EDIT: And forgive my incredulity but I have a seriously hard time swallowing the idea that you would vote for a law to ban women over 55 (or so) and people who have had hysterectomies from getting married.

That's really really hard to buy.

 

[ChunkiMunki]

This conversation is absurd. This isn't about society, offspring, or any of that other bullshit you clowns keep coming up with. The whole "purpose of marriage" discussion is moot because we already have a standard for marriage in this country, and allowing it to apply to gay people is not going to be the downfall of humanity. This is about two people who want their relationship recognized by the government so they can share their lives.

Yeah sure they don't need a civil union or "marriage" to do this but why in the hell do we need to make their lives more complicated by denying it to them? If they adopt kids they aren't going to turn them gay by giving them a loving home to grow up in. They aren't going to do anything other than be normal productive members of society who are simply afforded the same privileges as a heterosexual couple.

You have to be a real shitbag to get all pissy about this. It's a simple case of, "I don't like you, so I want your life to be as difficult as possible." It is a small and mean way to act toward other human beings.

so true, good post.

 

[Pens1566]

Banning marriage for sterile couples? Loon.

 

[Atreus21]

Well I'm trying to find where the argument to ban a funfamental right is. Saying 'these parents aren't ideal' doesn't come even remotely close to that standard. Imagine if you restricted free speech on grounds a speech wasn't ideal. The two rights are identical in their protection by the Constitution.

And that's why I think the modern definition of marriage, if there really is one, is wrong. It seems to place as its sole prerequisite the couple's desire to marry. Child-bearing is nowhere in the picture, and that's a major problem.

 

[Atreus21]

Banning marriage for sterile couples? Loon.

Well, we've each got our extremes. You guys would not oppose polygamy, I'd not oppose restricting sterile couples from marrying.

 

[Mursilis]

And that's why I think the modern definition of marriage, if there really is one, is wrong. It seems to place as its sole prerequisite the couple's desire to marry. Child-bearing is nowhere in the picture, and that's a major problem.

Why? See my post above.

 

[fskimospy]

And that's why I think the modern definition of marriage, if there really is one, is wrong. It seems to place as its sole prerequisite the couple's desire to marry. Child-bearing is nowhere in the picture, and that's a major problem.

So you want to redefine marriage? (tee hee) I edited my above post BTW, and I'll say it again. I have a seriously hard time believing that you would vote for a law banning old ladies and people who have had hysterectomies from getting married. I don't mean to talk shit, but I don't feel you're being honest with yourself or honest with me on that.

Regardless of what you think the purpose of marriage is though, that's not really relevant to the discussion. Marriage in a public sense is a legal union between two people and the act of marriage exists outside of whatever someone might try and do with that marriage later. (how would you even enforce that? Dissolve the marriage after 2 years if no kids were forthcoming? Good luck.) If you want to ban this union you need to show a specific harm to society that it will cause. It is not a privilege to be granted, it is a right that must be stripped from someone.

As has been said before, based upon the reasons you have put forth there is no harm. The fact that gay people cannot procreate doesn't harm society. They wren't going to procreate outside of marriage any more than they were inside of it. (it's not like gay people give up and go straight because they can't marry). Someone being gay married next to you does not make you have fewer kids. If you believe the purpose of marriage is procreation then you have no leg to stand on in a Constitutional sense by trying to restrict it on those grounds. Maybe you could describe the Constitutional reasoning you are using to reach your conclusion?

 

[Atreus21]

Why? See my post above.

Sorry, missed it.

I understand what you're saying, but you seem to be suggesting, along with PJABBER, a 'societal benefit' standard before gay marriage can be legalized. To me, that's the wrong standard. Gays need not demonstrate a societal benefit (other than to themselves) to have the legal right to marry - rather, society must demonstrate an actual societal harm by allowing the same. I think I have the right to do anything I want, as long as I harm no one else (at least, not without their consent, which is why boxing is not assault), and if society wishes to prevent me from engaging in a victimless activity, the burden is on society to demonstrate a harm, not on me to demonstrate a benefit. The 'benefit' is the preservation of the basic freedom of all.

You'll hate my response.

First, I don't think marriage is a right. I think marriage is an institution that society sanctions in its own interest. And for the purposes of my argument, I think society is right in restricting marriage to those most likely to produce children, as that is a compelling state interest. To put it in the terms of your argument, I think sanctioning an institution that is biologically incapable of producing children is harmful to society.

I realize this sounds very harsh.

 

[dawp]

Well, we've each got our extremes. You guys would not oppose polygamy, I'd not oppose restricting sterile couples from marrying.

How about those that chose to be sterile through vasectomy and/or tubal ligation? would you outlaw those procedures? You're sounding like you're against any form of birth control.

And marriage really isn't about reproduction any more, it more about the benefits that come out of being married.

And you don't have to be married to reproduce anyways.

BTW, my girlfriend just had a hysterectomy because of cancer, would you stop us from getting married?

 

[soulcougher73]

And that's why I think the modern definition of marriage, if there really is one, is wrong. It seems to place as its sole prerequisite the couple's desire to marry. Child-bearing is nowhere in the picture, and that's a major problem.

What does child-bearing and being married have to do with one another? I am married and we plan to have NO kids. Should we be annuled? You marry someone because you love them and want to be with them. The ability to have children is not the reason you marry someone. As we well know making babies outside of marriage happens all the time so obviously that function is not bestoyed upon you once you become hitched.

 

[Pens1566]

Well, we've each got our extremes. You guys would not oppose polygamy, I'd not oppose restricting sterile couples from marrying.

Nope, not in favor of polygamy. No one is legally able to marry multiple partners so there is no inequality there ...

So, automatic divorces for couples when a hysterectomy is performed? Or when one partner loses ability to procreate due to chemotherapy?

 

[Robor]

See Melissa Etheridge and Tammy Etheridge as a reference for that one.

I meant 'naturally' but good point. There's a lesbian woman where I work who has 2 children of her own.

 

[Robor]

Well, we've each got our extremes. You guys would not oppose polygamy, I'd not oppose restricting sterile couples from marrying.

That's not 'extreme' that's idiocy. Are you going to deny M+F couples who have no intention of having children too?

 

[Atreus21]

So you want to redefine marriage? (tee hee) I edited my above post BTW, and I'll say it again. I have a seriously hard time believing that you would vote for a law banning old ladies and people who have had hysterectomies from getting married. I don't mean to talk shit, but I don't feel you're being honest with yourself or honest with me on that.

Well, you're doing what I'm doing with polygamy: trying to determine where I draw the line, and why.

Sticking to a principle, to me, means defining the extremes. I am being honest.

Regardless of what you think the purpose of marriage is though, that's not really relevant to the discussion. Marriage in a public sense is a legal union between two people and the act of marriage exists outside of whatever someone might try and do with that marriage later. (how would you even enforce that? Dissolve the marriage after 2 years if no kids were forthcoming? Good luck.) If you want to ban this union you need to show a specific harm to society that it will cause. It is not a privilege to be granted, it is a right that must be stripped from someone.

I don't hold that a marriage should be dissolved if it is childless, but straight marriages are literally infinitely more likely to produce children, and society gives them the benefit of the doubt on this. It is not worth the time and expense to police every couple.

As has been said before, based upon the reasons you have put forth there is no harm. The fact that gay people cannot procreate doesn't harm society. They wren't going to procreate outside of marriage any more than they were inside of it. (it's not like gay people give up and go straight because they can't marry). Someone being gay married next to you does not make you have fewer kids. If you believe the purpose of marriage is procreation then you have no leg to stand on in a Constitutional sense by trying to restrict it on those grounds. Maybe you could describe the Constitutional reasoning you are using to reach your conclusion?

Well, I'm not arguing legally really. I never expected us to agree. I don't agree with the "harm" principle, because there are illegal activities that technically do no harm, yet government is right to restrict, such as polygamy and incest.

I have to go to lunch now. Nice debating.

 

[jonks]

How about if you start your reading with a basic understanding of what factors are likely to influence early stage child development -

Conceptualizing a “Strong Start”: Antecedents of Positive Child Outcomes at Birth and Into Early Childhood

http://www.childtrends.org/Files//Child_Trends-2007_02_12_RB_StrongStart.pdf

Are nuclear/traditional families important? How important are they?

Longitudinal indicators of the social context of families: beyond the snapshot

https://commerce.metapress.com/cont...5edbeaqrj2afgd0ut2cen&sh=www.springerlink.com

Then, let's consider the imprinting of sexual identity in the course of maturation -

Sexual scripts: permanence and change

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3718206?dopt=Abstract

I'll end here to give all of you homosexual marriage advocates a chance to reply. But, please, do reference some research studies that show us why we should further abandon traditional mores to support alternative lifestyles.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America supported the conclusion that gay and lesbian parents are as effective as heterosexual parents in raising children.

The official policy of the American Psychological Association declares, “There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for children.” Almost every professional group that has studied the issue indicates children are not harmed when raised by same-sex couples, but to the contrary, benefit from them.

Plaintiffs presented an abundance of evidence and research, confirmed by our independent research, supporting the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents. On the other hand, we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable
scientific studies.

Varnum v. Brien, SC Iowa, 2009

 

[dawp]

For the record, I have no problem with polygamy as long as all the adult involved consent.

 

[jonks]

First, I don't think marriage is a right. I think marriage is an institution that society sanctions in its own interest. And for the purposes of my argument, I think society is right in restricting marriage to those most likely to produce children, as that is a compelling state interest. To put it in the terms of your argument, I think sanctioning an institution that is biologically incapable of producing children is harmful to society.

I realize this sounds very harsh.

If the only right granted to married couples was the "right" to reproduce (now we're sounding kinda fascist, no?) you might at least have some argument. But marriage is not solely, or even mostly, about procreation. Anyone can procreate and marriage is not a requirement (are you suggesting that we only allow married couples to have children?)

Marriage encompasses literally hundreds of rights including property and estate distribution, end of life and medical decisions, tax formulations, medical benefits, and legal privileges (spousal immunity, etc.)

So a couple dating for a few months gets married, and the husband confesses a crime to his wife, she cannot be called to testify against him. Yet in a relationship spanning decades, a partner might confess to his/her same sex lover the same guilty admission, and their lifetime partner can (and you bet your ass will) be called to testify against them. Hardly sounds fair or logical to me.

 

[werepossum]

As a nation we need to come together as one people and start minding our own fucking business.

We should all be ashamed at how much we allow our government to interfere with our personal lives.

Quoted for truth. Government should never have that kind of power. If I'm not being asked to fund your lifestyle, I should have zero input into it as long as it is reasonably decorous in public, reasonably unlikely to materially injure me, and does not involve those unable to give informed consent. (I do realize that gay marriage involves children of the gays involved, but each person should have a wide range of latitude in raising his or her own children.)

Atreus - if two promiscuous bisexual women marry, their marriage would be expected to have twice the chance of bearing children, should they so desire, as a normal marriage. That is extreme - but it (or a lesbian artificially inseminated version) will probably happen sooner or later once gay marriage is legal.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Yes.



Yes.



I don't see the correlation. I don't have anything against artificial insemination.

My argument is thus:

A homosexual couple cannot produce children biologically. This is important because such an inability creates problems should the couple adopt/artificially inseminate. These problems are (1) Biological parents have an innate relationship to their children, whereas adoptive parents do not, and (2) I think all convention and nature have indicated that a couple made up of two of the opposite sex are the ideal parents for a child. It seems intuitive to me that a child ought to be thus exposed.

My opinion is that society should not sanction an institution that, 100% of the time, does not meet either of these conditions.

How about a woman or man who got sterilised within the marriage? Automatic divorce?

I honestly would rather have a gay couple raise my children than any couple that would include someone as fucked up in the head as you or that incredibly retarded PJABBER.

"Biological parents have an innate relationship with their children"... That is such romantic bullshit drivel. SOME Biological parents are good, some are not, some adoptive parents are WAY better for the kids and love them more than their biological parents ever have.

My opinion is that you should never ever procreate.

 

[rudder]

Well, we've each got our extremes. You guys would not oppose polygamy, I'd not oppose restricting sterile couples from marrying.

So not having fully functional sexual organs would preclude you from adopting?

 

[fskimospy]

Well, I'm not arguing legally really. I never expected us to agree. I don't agree with the "harm" principle, because there are illegal activities that technically do no harm, yet government is right to restrict, such as polygamy and incest.

I have to go to lunch now. Nice debating.

Well since we are presumably restricting the right of gay people to marry under US law, I don't see how we can escape what and how the law grants the government the right to restrict. So really we have no choice but to use the harm principle.

Also, we already covered that incest and polygamy at least have reasonable arguments for the harm they cause.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

So not having fully functional sexual organs would preclude you from adopting?

Read his posts, no child should ever be adopted, that would fuck up that "innate bond" that only biological parents have.