Who should be allowed to marry?

[Retro Rob]

You cannot define its primary purpose. Deal with it.

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.

 

[zsdersw]

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.

Clearly you've never heard of surrogate mothers and sperm donating fathers... which is not surprising, given your ignorance of anything not mentioned in the Bible.

The fact that you and I are here is the definition of sexual reproduction, not of marriage.

 

[Retro Rob]

Clearly you've never heard of surrogate mothers and sperm donating fathers... which is not surprising, given your ignorance of anything not mentioned in the Bible.

The fact that you and I are here is the definition of sexual reproduction, not of marriage.

My point is simple: at least one male and one female is required or the human race would not exist, whether they're married or not.

The sheer fact that homosexuals have to use other procedures involving people outside of their partners and other hoops they need to jump through, is a clear testament of what the purpose of intercourse and marriage is NOT about.

Sure, you can have sex and get married for reasons other than procreation, but what would happen to the human race if EVERY single person didn't want to procreate?

Then, the purpose of sex and marriage would again show its head -- for the survival and propagation of our race.

 

[zsdersw]

My point is simple: at least one male and one female is required or the human race would not exist, whether they're married or not.

The sheer fact that homosexuals have to use other procedures involving people outside of their partners and other hoops they need to jump through, is a clear testament of what the purpose of intercourse and marriage is NOT about.

Sure, you can have sex and get married for reasons other than procreation, but what would happen to the human race if EVERY single person didn't want to procreate?

Then, the purpose of sex and marriage would again show its head -- for the survival and propagation of our race.

You appear to be conflating sex and marriage simply by putting those two words in the same sentence or paragraph. Your reply reads like that, not like a well-written and defined link between sex and marriage.

Sex and marriage are not mutually inclusive.

 

[Retro Rob]

You appear to be conflating sex and marriage simply by putting those two words in the same sentence or paragraph. Your reply reads like that, not like a well-written and defined link between sex and marriage.

Sex and marriage are not mutually inclusive.

My bad.

 

[thraashman]

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.

I'd be willing to bet money that at least some homosexual individuals were born to unwed parents who never got married.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'd be willing to bet money that at least some homosexual individuals were born to unwed parents who never got married.

Duly noted -- clearly, I misspoke.

 

[randomrogue]

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.

See the problem here is that marriage has never been restricted to child bearing couples. You could get married at the age of 60 if you wanted to, if you're sterile, or despite not wanting kids. Marriage is not restricted to those who have children and never has been.

I know this will offend many but the only reason people want to restrict marriage to between a man and a woman is because they're bigots. It's really that simple.

Stop discriminating.

 

[Retro Rob]

See the problem here is that marriage has never been restricted to child bearing couples. You could get married at the age of 60 if you wanted to, if you're sterile, or despite not wanting kids. Marriage is not restricted to those who have children and never has been.

I know this will offend many but the only reason people want to restrict marriage to between a man and a woman is because they're bigots. It's really that simple.

Stop discriminating.

Child-bearing ability was never a prerequisite, and I never said it was limited to those who could have children.

Marriage can serve any purpose you want it to, something I never disputed.

What I do dispute is those who wish to change the purpose of marriage being in existence to begin with in order to cater to gay marriages.

Just because I may wish to change my car into a tank on 4-wheels, that doesn't impact or change the purpose of cars coming into existence, nor does it change why the manufacture(s) built it.

 

[Retro Rob]

Child-bearing ability was never a prerequisite, and I never said it was limited to those who could have children.

Marriage can serve any purpose you want it to, something I never disputed.

What I do dispute is those who wish to change the purpose of marriage being in existence to begin with in order to cater to gay marriages.

Just because I may wish to change my car into a tank on 4-wheels, that doesn't impact or change the purpose of cars coming into existence, nor does it change why the manufacture(s) built it.

...and to clarify myself, a woman not being able to bear children isn't the same as two people who can't possibly have children of their own. There is a difference.

 

[zsdersw]

Child-bearing ability was never a prerequisite, and I never said it was limited to those who could have children.

Marriage can serve any purpose you want it to, something I never disputed.

What I do dispute is those who wish to change the purpose of marriage being in existence to begin with in order to cater to gay marriages.

Such an origin (and primary purpose) of marriage is not for you or anyone else to dictate. It is not even agreed upon by an overwhelming majority that the primary purpose of marriage was and is procreation.

In other words, neither you nor anyone else is the authority on what the purpose for the creation of marriage was or is.

 

[randomrogue]

...and to clarify myself, a woman not being able to bear children isn't the same as two people who can't possibly have children of their own. There is a difference.

Really? What's the difference?

 

[Retro Rob]

Really? What's the difference?

Two persons of the same sex can't possibly have children OF THEIR OWN, on their own.

A man can simply choose a woman who can have children. The human race won't skip a beat.

I thought this would be obvious to you.

 

[nageov3t]

any number of consenting adults.

I leave it up to churches to decide which couples they will or will not marry, and I'd have no problem with insurance companies limiting coverage to one spouse or even no spousal coverage if they really want to.

 

[nehalem256]

Marriage is whatever its participants make of it...

It sounds like you just argued that marriage has no meaning. So why would the government recognize a relationship that has no meaning or purpose?

 

[nehalem256]

See the problem here is that marriage has never been restricted to child bearing couples. You could get married at the age of 60 if you wanted to, if you're sterile, or despite not wanting kids. Marriage is not restricted to those who have children and never has been.

(1) People used to be dead before 60
(2) Do you have access to 100% reliable fertility test? Not to mention that you apparently want to violate people's medical privacy.
(3) Not wanting kids is a more recent invention. Are you suggesting some kind of lie-detector test before marriage?

Marriage is not purely restricted to those who want or can have children because

(1) There is no way to verify this
(2) It is essentially a recent invention. And no one has thought to make it more restrictive.

In other words, neither you nor anyone else is the authority on what the purpose for the creation of marriage was or is.

Then essentially marriage cannot exist. Although I think you have to be pretty dumb or willfully ignorant to think procreation is not a very important reason for the creation of marriage.

 

[randomrogue]

Two persons of the same sex can't possibly have children OF THEIR OWN, on their own.

A man can simply choose a woman who can have children. The human race won't skip a beat.

I thought this would be obvious to you.

So sterile women can't marry right?

 

[nehalem256]

Really? What's the difference?

I explained this with my car analogy.

A matchbox truck is not a real truck. A chevy sitting in my garage is still a real truck even if you never take it out.

 

[nehalem256]

So sterile women can't marry right?

So you are arguing for the government to violate people's medical privacy?

And you have invented a 100% accurate fertility test?

 

[zsdersw]

It sounds like you just argued that marriage has no meaning. So why would the government recognize a relationship that has no meaning or purpose?

Just because the purpose changes and is different between different couples doesn't mean marriage has no meaning.

The majority of marriages in the US these days are not had primarily because of procreation.

 

[zsdersw]

Then essentially marriage cannot exist. Although I think you have to be pretty dumb or willfully ignorant to think procreation is not a very important reason for the creation of marriage.

It is one reason, but not the only one or necessarily the primary one.

 

[zsdersw]

I explained this with my car analogy.

A matchbox truck is not a real truck. A chevy sitting in my garage is still a real truck even if you never take it out.

You explained your wholly wrong, idiotic, and bigoted view of gay relationships, not the difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

 

[nehalem256]

Just because the purpose changes and is different between different couples doesn't mean marriage has no meaning.

If marriage can mean anything it has no meaning.

The majority of marriages in the US these days are not had primarily because of procreation.

Given the drive-thru status of marriage and the decay of "the American family", a very valid case can be made that procreation has become, sometimes, not at all beneficial to society.
.

Do you see why your argument might not be a good one?

And in addition you do realize that the purpose of marriage from a societal perspective is to control reproduction. It is not necessary for individuals to think marriage is about procreation. People are stupid. And institutions such as marriage help to control that stupidity.

 

[zsdersw]

If marriage can mean anything it has no meaning.

It doesn't mean "anything"... for most people it is primarily for one of a handful of reasons, and the other reasons are somewhere further down the list from the primary one.

Do you see why your argument might not be a good one?

And in addition you do realize that the purpose of marriage from a societal perspective is to control reproduction. It is not necessary for individuals to think marriage is about procreation. People are stupid. And institutions such as marriage help to control that stupidity.

The decay of the American family is not because most people don't get married primarily to foster or because of procreation. The decay of the American family has more to do with the irresponsibility of parents than it does with why they got married. Irresponsible parents are just as big of a drain on society as married irresponsible parents.. and responsible parents are just as much of a benefit to society as married responsible parents.

What, exactly, is the "institution" of marriage? What is so institutional about it?

 

[randomrogue]

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.