Go back? I thought you knew?:thumb:
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Go back? I thought you knew?:thumb:
Tell you what, why don't you clear up my "confusion" of what rights TH is referring to.
You have my word, I will not prevent homosexuals from procreating.
Well great. That's something, anyway.
:argue:
That's exactly what I'm referring to. Civil marriage exists to bolster families, whether there are children in the family or not.
Well, if it serves other purposes, what reason can you give to deny it to homosexual couples?
It's not non-sequitur if you know what a family is.
I understand what you mean perfectly. What you don't understand is that we've pointed out to you several reasons that that isn't relevant. Fertility is not expected of the couples applying for a marriage license in any state, so it is unfair and discriminatory to apply the standard to homosexuals.
Here's the actual exchange:
All I pointed out is that procreative status is not a precondition acknowledged in any jurisdiction in the country. Far from begging the question, I pointed out that you are applying a standard to homosexuals which is not applied to anyone else despite the fact that it could be.
No, actually you said "Marriage presently only exists between a man and a women," which is most emphatically not true, unless you doubt that a number of jurisdictions have actually started issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples. That is what the text you quoted was responding to, which should have been clear from the fact that I placed it immediately after quoting that exact claim from you.
No response on point for my observation that the law has to deal with exceptions to rules? Ok then, noted.
Don't you know? 93.7% of all statistics are made-up on the spot. I'd very strongly doubt that anywhere near 90% of all couples are fertile given that a hefty chunk of the population of women have gone through menopause and therefore are no longer fertile. And that doesn't even being to take into account other causes of infertility. Or, for that matter, prepubescence.
I don't deny that homosexuals don't typically procreate together. But it's irrelevant to me. That's not what marriage is about. I don't know if you've ever read through a state's marriage statutes, but one of the things you'll notice is that there are lots of provisions that have nothing to do with children. These vary by state, but they include things like protection against spousal abandonment, legal implications of the union to medical treatment, and property rights, and finances, and inheritance, and all sorts of stuff that is totally applicable to anyone regardless of gender. Many of them probably actually make things simpler on the government. Denying this to any group has to be justified by some strong compelling reason. Nothing that anyone has suggested rises even close to this level.
Interestingly, it is a lot harder to get most scholarships than it is to get a marriage license. And yes, I support thorough screening for eligibility, at least as much is justified by the scholarship amounts. We shouldn't spend ten thousand dollars screening candidates for a five-hundred dollar scholarship, but perhaps for a full ride to law school to would make more sense.
Yeah, pretty much. Welfare abuse is a big problem. Now, are you really going to tell me that you believe that in an ideal world, we would deny marriage certificates to all couples that can't or won't produce children biologically related to both parents? I'd like a straight answer on that question please.
That's an empty sleeve waved with gusto.
Then stop making them. :think:
Then lucky for me I never claimed it does, because that would have been embarrassing, let me tell you.
I refer you to the previously noted means by which they can biologically produce children and the point made that in this they are not principally different from any other couple incapable absent assistance.
Do you imagine the child will produce itself? :squint:
And if the point is walking on water and not the evidence of your divine power you'd be right. :thumb:I can walk on water, I only need assistence.
Well, no. I'm not attempting to restrict right absent justification that doesn't reduce to "God told me." That being the call of many a voice with many a different and conflicting notion.
I've done nothing of the sort. You're hysterical.
Not really. For instance, they can't be a heterosexual couple. Else, it's a bit goofy. Many a heterosexual couple can't procreate, so they adopt or by some artificial means arrive at the obstructed desire, assuming they have it. In this principle a homosexual couple can similarly find their way to the mark. So what you're banking on is an arbitrary valuation of the ability of two people within a marriage contract to propagate. What you haven't begun to establish is why this distinction should control a blessed thing.
So says everyone who believes a thing to the other fellow who's sure they're up to their eyeballs in beans.
I understand that you believe that's what happened. I never advanced the notion that the only thing the government was doing was binding a contract. That isn't and hasn't been my argument.
What's with the acoustics around here? What I've said is that the issue is no more one that should be put to a vote than whether Catholics should be allowed to marry.
Rather, it's the respect of each man's right to his own conscience that's at the heart of our secular Republic. I happen to think that's a swell idea. I don't want the Catholic Church to outlaw condoms or some peculiar Jewish or Islamic notion to find itself impressed upon me as law. There are, frankly, things that are your business and those which are only between the individual and his or her conscience. That this escapes you is double proof of the need for the very separation you mistakenly attribute in origin.
Said every man with a different idea of what constitutes that to the next fellow. Happy jihad.
lain::e4e:
Your confusion appears to run deeper than that. You're advancing religious rhetoric and I'm discussing how our secular Republic functions and should in relation to its expressed principles.
I'm not trying to argue anyone out of their faith, only suggesting we had that sort of thing once and it's a great deal of the reason we fled to a land where we could establish a secular republic. 30 Years War anyone? :nono:
I'm for it. I can't see a reason for their to be anything against it.
are you really worried about that?
I would like an answer to that as well, Zippy. Either marriage is only for couples who can PROVE they are able to and willing to biologically procreate with one another or it is not? Which is it?
IF you believe it is, then please tell us how this can be enforced? Once both partners are medically inspected (ah the romance that goes with marriage), how do you enforce making them produce babies?
Should there be a time limit on when they pop out the first child? Unless a Government Assigned Fertility/Pregnancy Inspector follows them around, how will we know they are just not borrowing the next door neighbor's baby as a way to slip under the radar? How do you know the couple won't just buy a baby on the black market?
What happens if the husband is in the military and shipped overseas before he is able to impregnate the little woman and they miss the time limit for producing their child? Will the marriage be considered invalid? Would you encourage the hubby and wife to hire a stand in to impregnate her?
Since YOU are the one that is demanding that couples who wed be mandated to reproduce, I would like a detailed account of how this will be enforced. Also, what penalty would they receive for only *pretending* they are capable of or interested in having children? Jail time? Divorce? Fine? Death?
Last edited:
The longer you speak the less you talk about scripture and the more you gush about governmental control. And how exactly will more marriages end marriage?
Dude, it was an example of the possible implications of abandoning secularism, just like his other examples of being pressed into Islam or Judaism. Ease up there.
and do you think that is possible?
No. Not so long as we have our Republic. But it's the underlying principle, Chrys. Stop straining at the gnat.
That's really not the point.
Mr.Razorblades
New member
kmoney said:
Yes, because the removal of the details in conjunction with "in principle" would cause no contradiction. It would be "in principle, procreation is possible". That is a sound claim, because in principle, with no details or circumstances, procreation is possible.
Town Heretic said:
My name is Deacon Razorblades, and I fully support this message. I asked my wife to marry me, fully aware that the probability of us having children was close to 0% due to her PCOS and other hormonal issues. Our relationship is simply more important than just procreation. I believe a lot of individuals out there feel the same.
danoman21 said:
So, apparently sarcasm slips right over your head as does your ability to dish it.
danoman31 said:
This is interestingly similar to the writings of Stripe, but just a shade less original. I would expect someone who is placing "retards" onto a list to be able to develop a more interesting way of putting "retards" onto said list. Try again, and I'll grade your performance and overall sarcastic development, which so far pales in comparison to Stripe. As for now I give you an F. Additionally, because you are not of age, failure of your next performance will require you to get a signed letter by your parents to continue your lessons in sarcastic development.
I just wanted to know if you thought it was possible
You have to ask me nicely.
isn't that a great movie?
Possible, yes. Likely, no.
I used one of any number of potential religious impositions on the public square if we base our law singularly on our moral notion without a corresponding justification that doesn't require it.
So, unless you think Sharia law would be a good thing to have in your neighborhood, you don't want to advocate that principle.
- Status