Same sex marriage

[Atomic Playboy]

I have yet to see 2 men have a child together.

 

[nehalem256]

Someone doesn't understand basic biology I see.

There is already a process in place if you want to raise a non-biological child. Its called adoption.

 

[MrPickins]

I have yet to see 2 men have a child together.

We've had this discussion as well. Do you have a bad memory or something?

Regardless of whether the child is adopted or produced artificially via one of the partner's gametes, that child is theirs.

It's absolutely no different than my having been born to heterosexual parents who had to resort to artificial insemination using donor semen.

Again, I dare you to go tell my dad that he's not my father.

 

[MrPickins]

I was responding to Mr Pickens point about it not mattering what kind of sex a person is having, and I countered that it does matter and supported my position.

Yeah, Retro Bob, heterosexual people engage in anal sex and all kinds of other risky sexual acts, so you're not really refuting my point.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Someone doesn't understand basic biology I see.

There is already a process in place if you want to raise a non-biological child. Its called adoption.

Well duh. You're saying that adoptive parents should have fewer rights than biological parents because DNA, which is an impossibly stupid argument if you actually care about the welfare of the children being raised by adoptive couples.

 

[MrPickins]

Someone doesn't understand basic biology I see.

There is already a process in place if you want to raise a non-biological child. Its called adoption.

And does that adopted child not deserve to have its parents marriage recognized?

Would that not provide substantial benefits for the kid?

Seriously, all of this has been addressed in the appeals court ruling you refuse to read.

 

[soulcougher73]

LOL, you really need to read.

I was responding to Mr Pickens point about it not mattering what kind of sex a person is having, and I countered that it does matter and supported my position.

You've clearly demonstrated just how you either don't or, in all likelihood, CAN'T read...and this is the umpteenth time you've done this.

I think you need to comprehend what you write down. This is your issue, not mine. You said gays are not monogamous to which i said neither are heterosexuals. Thus nullifying your point entirely. Then you said gays spread more STDs. And i responded with what does that have to do with SSM.

You dont think your arguments through very well. Cause if you did youd realize that maybe allowing SSM would slow down the spread of STDs in the gay community. Which means you should value SSM if you care about STDs so much.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

And, I am surprised that idiots like you cannot discern the difference between function (a vagina used to birth kids, discard urine, and for sexual intercourse) and purpose (an anus' sole purpose is to HOLD and DISCARD fecal waste).

Says who? Is that written in the manual somewhere?

In fact it is YOU, you stupid fuckwit, that is trying to derive purpose from function. You know those morons that haven't read any Hume that I mentioned earlier? You are first among them.

 

[soulcougher73]

Well considering that same-sex marriage supporters like to point ot childless couples as an argument that marriage is not about children I will point to the 50% divorce rate as an argument that marriage isn't about forming stable monogamous relationships.

And in addition I will point to this thread where we have liberals complaining about laws against adultery
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2378565&highlight=adultery

Tell Rob that. He seems to think only hetros are monogamous. Maybe you guys can get on the same page with your arguments against SSM.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Someone doesn't understand basic biology I see.

There is already a process in place if you want to raise a non-biological child. Its called adoption.

What does it matter where the child comes from? It's hard to believe that those two won't give their children a better life than 90% of heterosexual couples are able to give their children. Motivation is a big deal to me. Straight couples can accidentally fall into having children just because the guy doesn't pull out in time. Homosexual couples have to want children really badly to be willing to jump through the hoops required to adopt or pay the exorbitant fees required for a surrogate. Someone who wants to be a parent that badly will be a good parent more often than not, and society is better for it no matter whose biological children they are.

 

[soulcougher73]

Someone doesn't understand basic biology I see.

There is already a process in place if you want to raise a non-biological child. Its called adoption.

So whats the problem then? Or is adoption only good for hetro couples who cant reproduce? lol

 

[fskimospy]

We've had this discussion as well. Do you have a bad memory or something?

Regardless of whether the child is adopted or produced artificially via one of the partner's gametes, that child is theirs.

It's absolutely no different than my having been born to heterosexual parents who had to resort to artificial insemination using donor semen.

Again, I dare you to go tell my dad that he's not my father.

He doesn't have a bad memory, it's just that when he gets humiliated enough in a thread instead of reevaluating his position he backs out of it and waits for a new thread to make all the same arguments again. It's bizarre.

 

[alzan]

LOL, you really need to read.

I was responding to Mr Pickens point about it not mattering what kind of sex a person is having, and I countered that it does matter and supported my position.

You've clearly demonstrated just how you either don't or, in all likelihood, CAN'T read...and this is the umpteenth time you've done this.

As long as it's protected sex what does it matter? (That goes for hetero and homo couples)

And still has nothing to do with allowing SSM. (Psst: there's more to marriage than just sex)

 

[nehalem256]

Well duh. You're saying that adoptive parents should have fewer rights than biological parents because DNA, which is an impossibly stupid argument if you actually care about the welfare of the children being raised by adoptive couples.

What fewer rights do they have? I am saying that adoption and marriage are different things and therefore are handled differently.

And does that adopted child not deserve to have its parents marriage recognized?

Would that not provide substantial benefits for the kid?

What benefit exactly? Doesn't the adoption process already vet the parents?

What problem is marriage solving exactly?

What does it matter where the child comes from? It's hard to believe that those two won't give their children a better life than 90% of heterosexual couples are able to give their children. Motivation is a big deal to me. Straight couples can accidentally fall into having children just because the guy doesn't pull out in time. Homosexual couples have to want children really badly to be willing to jump through the hoops required to adopt or pay the exorbitant fees required for a surrogate. Someone who wants to be a parent that badly will be a good parent more often than not, and society is better for it no matter whose biological children they are.

Exactly. Pretty hard to accidentally adopt someone now isn't it?

 

[nehalem256]

As long as it's protected sex what does it matter? (That goes for hetero and homo couples)

And still has nothing to do with allowing SSM. (Psst: there's more to marriage than just sex)

Unless you believe that sex is integrally important to marriage its pretty hard to argue that homosexuals are being discriminated against though.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Exactly. Pretty hard to accidentally adopt someone now isn't it?

Yes, and homosexual couples who are willing to do it will likely be better than average parents. Marriage will further bolster their ability to form the stable relationships necessary to come to that point. So marriage is all about the children in all cases, including SSM.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, and homosexual couples who are willing to do it will likely be better than average parents. Marriage will further bolster their ability to form the stable relationships necessary to come to that point. So marriage is all about the children in all cases, including SSM.

How exactly will marriage bolster their ability to form a stable relationship?

You missed the 50% divorce rate?

You missed the liberals who apparently have no issue with adultery?

 

[master_shake_]

not seeing an issue with ssm...

they just want the same kind of benefits that non ssm people get.

why is that not allowed?

how does that hurt anyone is the big bad gay boogeyman going to come after you at night?

of course not, just like all the negativity and horror stories it's all in your head.

 

[soulcougher73]

Unless you believe that sex is integrally important to marriage its pretty hard to argue that homosexuals are being discriminated against though.

If anything marriage kills sex lol So what we really need to do is get rid of marriage all together so we can actually have sex to procreate. Im a genius!!

"Won't somebody think of society?"

 

[Retro Rob]

As long as it's protected sex what does it matter? (That goes for hetero and homo couples)

And still has nothing to do with allowing SSM. (Psst: there's more to marriage than just sex)

Umm..because we have no way of knowing if people actually use protection.

Secondly, either people either aren't using it or it isn't workin or that 64 percent number I shared wouldn't be nearly as high.

 

[alzan]

If anything marriage kills sex lol So what we really need to do is get rid of marriage all together so we can actually have sex to procreate. Im a genius!!

Not kills; goes unconscious maybe but occasionally regains consciousness

 

[Victorian Gray]

My point is that nature doesn't dictate anything when pitted against human intelligence. We submit to nature at will, and we ignore it at will.

We control it, not the other way round.

We control nature?

Suffering from a touch of hubris are we?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

What fewer rights do they have? I am saying that adoption and marriage are different things and therefore are handled differently.

You also are the one who brings up gay people's inability to biologically make a baby every single time we discuss same-sex marriage. Literally every single thread your argument is "they can't make a baby." So clearly you think that there's a link between marriage and reproduction; if you didn't, you wouldn't argue it ad infinitum. Gay adoption shows that clearly gay people can become parents, and you aren't even arguing against them doing so... which means that you think that marriage should be for producing offspring, but not necessarily raising offspring. That's frankly a stupid position to hold. It's completely illogical to think that the marital status of the parents is more important when they're conceiving a child than when they're raising it, but that's exactly the argument you make when you argue that gay people should be allowed to adopt, but not marry specifically because they can't produce offspring. I can't even wrap my brain around the mental gymnastics needed to think that gay parents shouldn't be allowed to marry because their child doesn't contain the DNA from both of them but infertile straight couples should be allowed to marry because biologically other heterosexual couplings have resulted in offspring even though theirs never will. It's complete nonsense.

 

[SlitheryDee]

How exactly will marriage bolster their ability to form a stable relationship?

You missed the 50% divorce rate?

You missed the liberals who apparently have no issue with adultery?

That still means that 50% stay together. I'd be willing to bet that's much higher than the success rate of unmarried couples during the same length of time. The people who are not married are overwhelmingly involved in multiple short term, unstable relationships that are not conducive to child rearing, yet they're still having children in those sub-optimal conditions. If even half of marriages work out, I'll take that if I can't get more. In homosexuals we have a whole new segment of society that seems to be powerfully interested in marriage, and we want to deny that for them? In light of your own points, that seems foolhardy to me.

 

[soulcougher73]

You also are the one who brings up gay people's inability to biologically make a baby every single time we discuss same-sex marriage. Literally every single thread your argument is "they can't make a baby." So clearly you think that there's a link between marriage and reproduction; if you didn't, you wouldn't argue it ad infinitum. Gay adoption shows that clearly gay people can become parents, and you aren't even arguing against them doing so... which means that you think that marriage should be for producing offspring, but not necessarily raising offspring. That's frankly a stupid position to hold. It's completely illogical to think that the marital status of the parents is more important when they're conceiving a child than when they're raising it, but that's exactly the argument you make when you argue that gay people should be allowed to adopt, but not marry specifically because they can't produce offspring. I can't even wrap my brain around the mental gymnastics needed to think that gay parents shouldn't be allowed to marry because their child doesn't contain the DNA from both of them but infertile straight couples should be allowed to marry because biologically other heterosexual couplings have resulted in offspring even though theirs never will. It's complete nonsense.

This is Nehalem256 were talking about afterall. :sneaky: