Who should be allowed to marry?

[Charles Kozierok]

So basically we've determined that rather than just not discriminate we should discriminate more.

Alternate determination: nehalem is a Johnny-one-note troll who likes having the same arguments over and over again, and should be ignored.

 

[soulcougher73]

Gays can't procreate, deal with it. Without adoption, they would never have children. Without heterosexuals, there would be no kids to adopt, without straight marriages, gays would not have been born.

The fact that you and I are here basically defined marriage.

No, that defines sexual intercouse. Has absolutely zero, nill, nada to do with marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

So basically we've determined that rather than just not discriminate we should discriminate more. So from now on only fertile male-female couples can marry if their intent is to have a kid. They must get tested and if they don't conceive right away they get divorced. Lets give them say 1 year? After that they're just not biologically suitable for marriage.

The very purpose of marriage is to discriminate. Complaining that marriage discriminates is like complaining that water is wet.

No one has ever defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman who have a child within one year of getting married. I see no practical method to legally prevent people who don't want children from getting married. The method to prevent that is best done through social pressure.

Although I guess we could say that women over say 50 can't get married as after menopause women can't have children.

A gay couple clearly and inescapably cannot procreate and there is no reason for society to recognize their relationship.

 

[nehalem256]

No, that defines sexual intercouse. Has absolutely zero, nill, nada to do with marriage.

So why is sexual intercourse needed to consummate a marriage?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Gays can't procreate, deal with it.

A lesbian couple has a better chance of successfully procreating than a straight couple.

There are tons of kids who need to be adopted, which gay male couples can do.

This is modern society. Deal with it.

 

[zsdersw]

A gay couple clearly and inescapably cannot procreate and there is no reason for society to recognize their relationship.

There is no reason for you to exist, but alas you do.

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the history of homosexuality in America. If you did, there would be a chance you'd recognize how beneficial monogamous and committed gay relationships are to not only the gay community but the rest of society, and how those relationships are something government should recognize.

 

[soulcougher73]

So why is sexual intercourse needed to consummate a marriage?

It isnt.

 

[Retro Rob]

There are tons of kids who need to be adopted, which gay male couples can do.

This is modern society. Deal with it.

Thanks to the sheer amount of heterosexuals, there are even kids to adopt.

Other than that, the human race would be extinct.

This is fact, deal with that.

 

[soulcougher73]

Thanks to the sheer amount of heterosexuals, there are even kids to adopt.

Other than that, the human race would be extinct.

This is fact, deal with that.

So procreation is not an issue. Great. Can we drop that arguement from the debate now please?

 

[randomrogue]

So should rape be legal then since children are conceived through it? Only gay rape should be illegal?

 

[Greenman]

A lesbian couple has a better chance of successfully procreating than a straight couple.

There are tons of kids who need to be adopted, which gay male couples can do.

This is modern society. Deal with it.

Absolute hogwash. Without a male, or his sperm, a lesbian couple can't reproduce. In the natural world they are sterile, an evolutionary dead end.

 

[nehalem256]

A lesbian couple has a better chance of successfully procreating than a straight couple.

Are you serious? You put 2 women together they are never going to procreate.

Thanks to the sheer amount of heterosexuals, there are even kids to adopt.

The fact there are kids to adopt is basically because of the destruction of marriage.

How many kids are there to adopt that come from a married couple?

 

[nehalem256]

So should rape be legal then since children are conceived through it?

Wait. I thought women's bodies naturally shut down in the case of rape ^_^

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Without a male, or his sperm, a lesbian couple can't reproduce.

Very good! Have a cookie.

And how hard is it to come by a male's sperm? Not at all.

Two wombs, two potentials for fertility. So they have a better chance than a heterosexual couple.

Sucks for you, don't it?

 

[Retro Rob]

Very good! Have a cookie.

And how hard is it to come by a male's sperm? Not at all.

Two wombs, two potentials for fertility. So they have a better chance than a heterosexual couple.

Sucks for you, don't it?

Sucks for you - the opposite sex is needed. There is no way around it, is there?

 

[Greenman]

Very good! Have a cookie.

And how hard is it to come by a male's sperm? Not at all.

Two wombs, two potentials for fertility. So they have a better chance than a heterosexual couple.

Sucks for you, don't it?

It sucks for me in that it's pretty useless to argue with that sort of stupidity.

Though I think I now understand why the discussion club is dead.

 

[Munky]

You two are confusing the social availability of sperm and biological availability. In our social system, two women can get sperm from a man and raise a kid. However, the biological availability of the man is a requirement to obtain that sperm. Without men, there will be no sperm.

 

[nehalem256]

Very good! Have a cookie.

And how hard is it to come by a male's sperm? Not at all.

Two wombs, two potentials for fertility. So they have a better chance than a heterosexual couple.

Sucks for you, don't it?

Clearly no problems could come from this:

http://news.yahoo.com/florida-judge-approves-birth-certificate-listing-three-parents-233555185.html

Not to mention that the point of marriage is to control procreation. If one of the parents is not part of the marriage procreation is not controlled.

 

[nehalem256]

You two are confusing the social availability of sperm and biological availability. In our social system, two women can get sperm from a man and raise a kid. However, the biological availability of the man is a requirement to obtain that sperm. Without men, there will be no sperm.

So could a woman and a toaster.

 

[Retro Rob]

You two are confusing the social availability of sperm and biological availability. In our social system, two women can get sperm from a man and raise a kid. However, the biological availability of the man is a requirement to obtain that sperm. Without men, there will be no sperm.

True, I look at it more biologically, especially seeing how folks like to talk about the so called "naturalness" of homosexuality.

It's in our best interest (and natrual interest) for humans to survive and this can only be done if we procreate. By way of experiment, if all hetero people lived on Earth, lesbians on Mars, and gay men on Venus, it is pretty clear cut who'd be alive by the time I'm 80, and who'd potentially wipe out the human race.

We can't work around the unnaturalness of homosexuality, period. If we could find away to reproduce without the need of the opposite sex, then one could argue that it's as natrual as liking chocolate ice cream, etc.

 

[sandorski]

True, I look at it more biologically, especially seeing how folks like to talk about the so called "naturalness" of homosexuality.

It's in our best interest (and natrual interest) for humans to survive and this can only be done if we procreate. By way of experiment, if all hetero people lived on Earth, lesbians on Mars, and gay men on Venus, it is pretty clear cut who'd be alive by the time I'm 80, and who'd potentially wipe out the human race.

We can't work around the unnaturalness of homosexuality, period. If we could find away to reproduce without the need of the opposite sex, then one could argue that it's as natrual as liking chocolate ice cream, etc.

Homosexuality is Natural. Their inability to procreate amongst themselves has no bearing on the Naturalistic nature of Homosexuality.

 

[Retro Rob]

Homosexuality is Natural. Their inability to procreate amongst themselves has no bearing on the Naturalistic nature of Homosexuality.

Uh... Yes it does.

Anything that works against our ability to survive is unnatural.... from death, to disease. Death and disease has simply become a part of life, though no one desires to get sick and die.

Granted, not wanting to reproduce is going contrary to nature to a degree, however, lacking desire isn't the same as lacking ability. SS couples lack ability.

 

[cybrsage]

Alternate determination: nehalem is a Johnny-one-note troll who likes having the same arguments over and over again, and should be ignored.

Fuck off, troll.

Listen to yourself, troll, and fuck off.

 

[cybrsage]

A lesbian couple has a better chance of successfully procreating than a straight couple.

Wow, you really need to take a class in basic human procreation. It takes a sperm and an egg to procreate - and women do not have sperm.

 

[cybrsage]

Absolute hogwash. Without a male, or his sperm, a lesbian couple can't reproduce. In the natural world they are sterile, an evolutionary dead end.

He failed basic health class in grade school. We should not mock him for it, but instead feel bad for his ignorance of basic human reproduction.