toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[Rusha]

So other than for religious reasons, do you have a *decent* argument as to why homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry.

The Zipster has gone on for pages and still hasn't offered a reasonable argument.

Would you deny Grampa Joe and Granny Josephina the right to marry based on their ability to have children?

 

[chrysostom]

So other than for religious reasons, do you have a *decent* argument as to why homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry.

The Zipster has gone on for pages and still hasn't offered a reasonable argument.

Would you deny Grampa Joe and Granny Josephina the right to marry based on their ability to have children?

the purpose of marriage is to protect the child and the mother who takes care of the child

when a man and women get married there is a very high probability that it will produce children

monitoring those marriages that do not produce children is not pratcial

 

[Rusha]

the purpose of marriage is to protect the child

Not all heterosexual marriages produce children. Many heterosexuals marry with the understanding they do not want children. Are you denying this?

and the mother who takes care of the child

Assuming the the *mother* is an ADULT, why does she need protection? Who is she being protected from?

when a man and women get married there is a very high probability that it will produce children

Not necessarily. Also, as explained to the Zipster, homosexuals have the ability to use a surrogate or adoption. Based on your logic, only individuals who are willing to raise children should marry so it is up to heterosexuals and homosexuals to provide proof that they will be raising children together.

monitoring those marriages that do not produce children is not pratcial

Other than destroying your argument, why is it not practical? You make such a big deal about couples being required to bear children and yet you don't wish to monitor them?

That makes no sense.

 

[chrysostom]

Not all heterosexual marriages produce children. Many heterosexuals marry with the understanding they do not want children. Are you denying this?



Assuming the the *mother* is an ADULT, why does she need protection? Who is she being protected from?



Not necessarily. Also, as explained to the Zipster, homosexuals have the ability to use a surrogate or adoption. Based on your logic, only individuals who are willing to raise children should marry so it is up to heterosexuals and homosexuals to provide proof that they will be raising children together.



Other than destroying your argument, why is it not practical? You make such a big deal about couples being required to bear children and yet you don't wish to monitor them?

That makes no sense.

this is all based on what is good for society
and
it is reasonable to believe that a mother staying home to take care of the child is best for the child and ultimately good for society
and
this means that her benefits must somehow be tied to the father who receives the rewards of the workplace

 

[Uberpod1]

this is all based on what is good for society

Wouldn't it be good for society, good for children to allow gay couples who already have children to marry??

it is reasonable to believe that a mother staying home to take care of the child is best for the child and ultimately good for society

atrol: Should also be true for lesbian mothers. atrol:

It is very easy to monitor if children actually exist, isn't it? Gay couples who intend to parent their children should be allowed to marry by your "logic".

It is also easy to monitor age. Therefore, women above child bearing age should NOT be allowed to marry - according to you. atrol:

 

[chrysostom]

Wouldn't it be good for society, good for children to allow gay couples who already have children to marry??
atrol: Should also be true for lesbian mothers. atrol:

It is very easy to monitor if children actually exist, isn't it? Gay couples who intend to parent their children should be allowed to marry by your "logic".

It is also easy to monitor age. Therefore, women above child bearing age should NOT be allowed to marry - according to you. atrol:

not really

society does not rely on what homosexuals do

 

[Rusha]

this is all based on what is good for society

Correction: You mean your *opinion* of what is good for society. I don't believe that persecuting others based on your religion is good for society. As a matter of fact, it's harmful.

and it is reasonable to believe that a mother staying home to take care of the child is best for the child and ultimately good for society

No, that is your *opinion* and simply not reality. Mothers (including those who are married) rarely stay at home with the children. Finances do not allow such. Also, a good portion of a child's day is spent in school.

and this means that her benefits must somehow be tied to the father who receives the rewards of the workplace

You make too many assumptions. Not all fathers work outside of the home. Why should a father be denied his right to stay at home and bond with his child IF his wife is more capable of providing for the family? I know, I know ... too much of an ego-buster, eh, Chrys?

Perhaps you should worry more about what you are doing in your own marriage and what your role is than trying to stick your nose where it doesn't belong ... in the relationships/marriages of others.

 

[Uberpod1]

not really

society does not rely on what homosexuals do

No, it relies on what people who reproduce do -- according to you. Their sexual orientation or their gender should not matter.
:chew:

 

[chrysostom]

No, it relies on what people who reproduce do -- according to you. Their sexual orientation or their gender should not matter.
:chew:

to reproduce requires a man and a women
and
marriage in theory keeps them together for the sake of the child

 

[chrysostom]

Correction: You mean your *opinion* of what is good for society. I don't believe that persecuting others based on your religion is good for society. As a matter of fact, it's harmful.



No, that is your *opinion* and simply not reality. Mothers (including those who are married) rarely stay at home with the children. Finances do not allow such. Also, a good portion of a child's day is spent in school.



You make too many assumptions. Not all fathers work outside of the home. Why should a father be denied his right to stay at home and bond with his child IF his wife is more capable of providing for the family? I know, I know ... too much of an ego-buster, eh, Chrys?

Perhaps you should worry more about what you are doing in your own marriage and what your role is than trying to stick your nose where it doesn't belong ... in the relationships/marriages of others.

there are exceptions to every rule
and
I can see that is your job
and
I will leave it to you

 

[Uberpod1]

to reproduce requires a man and a women

Do you have a little Mormon in you? :rotfl:

and
marriage in theory keeps them together for the sake of the child

You're general template does not resolve the specific instances I brought to you. Try a more comprehensive model.

 

[Rusha]

there are exceptions to every rule

So feel free to list the *rule* that mandates that men and women are REQUIRED to have babies to be allowed to marry.

and I can see that is your job and I will leave it to you

Nah, *my job* is not poking holes in your ridiculous, misogynistic arguments. It's just a hobby that I enjoy.

 

[chrysostom]

why should one guy living with another guy get any more benefits than the mother his two children, who is now living alone?

 

[Rusha]

to reproduce requires a man and a women

Artificial insemination and adoption makes your argument null and void.

and marriage in theory keeps them together for the sake of the child

Nope ... the only thing that keeps any couple together is mutual respect and love. Without it, there is no *marriage* except in name only.

BTW, since when did having kids keep couples from divorcing? So much for your theory of kids keeping couples together. :dizzy:

 

[Rusha]

why should one guy living with another guy get any more benefits than the mother his two children, who is now living alone?

Why would you assume that is the case? There is such a thing as child support and going out to work for a living.

Why would you expect a man or a woman to marry and stay with someone of the opposite sex that they could never love or live amicably with?

 

[Delmar]

Artificial insemination and adoption makes your argument null and void.

It takes a man and a woman to do artificial insemination :idunno:

 

[Uberpod1]

why should one guy living with another guy get any more benefits than the mother his two children, who is now living alone?

They should get different benefits.

The custodial parent should receive ample child support. She should be able to seek a relationship that will make her happy like anyone else.

Daddy should get reasonable visitation. Shame on the Daddy if he played straight and defrauded Mommy. Shame on the church and culture at large who intimidated Daddy into pretending he was something he is not.

 

[Uberpod1]

It takes a man and a woman to do artificial insemination :idunno:

And, a turkey baster.

Gay people always have children who are intended, wanted, and never aborted. NOT TOO SHABBY!!

 

[Town Heretic]

the purpose of marriage is to protect the child and the mother who takes care of the child

No, it's not. The purpose of a marriage, in the country where you reside, is to seal a contract between two adults who desire a legally recognized and protected union.

when a man and women get married there is a very high probability that it will produce children

Less so these days. According to a 2007 Pew poll, only 41% thought children were even important to a successful marriage. That figure was 65% in 1990. The trend seems to be against the proposition.

monitoring those marriages that do not produce children is not pratcial

Or particularly Constitutional. lain:

 

[Rusha]

It takes a man and a woman to do artificial insemination :idunno:

That's not the point. Married heterosexual couples also rely on adoption and artificial insemination in order to produce children.

Chys and Zippy are arguing that couples who marry should be capable of having children through natural means only because marriage is only about having babies.

Under their criteria, every person applying for a marriage license should be tested to make sure they are not sterile or unable to conceive without outside intervention.