you wouldn't answer my question
would you consider having children without getting married?
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
you wouldn't answer my question
would you consider having children without getting married?
but how is the one taking care of the child being taken care of?
There isn't the one. That's another mistake in a series of yours.
Again, most families divide responsibilities relating to child rearing, which you still haven't established is the point of marriage...the reason for that failure being, for the reasons actually offered prior, that it demonstrably isn't.
who is taking care of your child now?
Why is that a point of consideration and/or any of your business? I've answered you on the point of providing for a child and, further, related again that this sidebar isn't an argument against the consideration at hand.
this would be a good chance to explain how this shared responsibility works
and
how it is much different from say just two people living together
zoo22
Well-known member
Chrysostom: Baloney.
1) While an aspect of marriage protects children, having children is absolutely not intrinsic to marriage,
2) While a same-sex marriage/union doesn't involve procreation the same as it does with a straight couple, a same-sex couple can and very often does have children (whether through adoption, previous marriages, etc). In those cases, the child/ren & family ought to be afforded the very same "protection" by the government as any other child or family is.
You can keep tossing your opinions into a too-large box, but they're not going to fill it.
You could defend certain Islamic definitions of marriage, where "exclusive reproductive rights" comes directly into play, and therefore a same-sex marriage doesn't fall within the bounds of "marriage." We're not talking about Islamic marriage, so it's moot, but bark up that Islamic marriage tree, defending it if you want.
As far as calling same-sex marriage "marriage" or "civil union" or whatever, personally I think government-sanctioned union between two people, hetero or homosexual ought to be called the same thing. I don't care if the Church calls it marriage or not, but as far as it falls under a government definition, with government-sanctioned rights, it ought to be the same. I'd prefer that all government-sanctioned unions between two people be called "civil unions" (or similar), and "marriage" be a separate thing altogether, but I don't expect that'd happen. Maybe folks taking issue with same-sex "marriage" should start working to separate the term "marriage" from the government, instead of working to exclude people from participating equally in something that ultimately comes down to being a goverment issue. A commitment made under the eyes of God is not the same as a commitment made under the eyes of the government. A Christian couple can get have their civil-union sanctioned by the government, and also be married under the eyes of God. Separately. But again, I don't expect that to happen.
Please don't bother "replying" with your stock question "responses"...I'm not interested in running circles and jumping hoops through your non-discussions. However, if you want to actually engage in conversation, please do.
1) While an aspect of marriage protects children, having children is absolutely not intrinsic to marriage,
2) While a same-sex marriage/union doesn't involve procreation the same as it does with a straight couple, a same-sex couple can and very often does have children (whether through adoption, previous marriages, etc). In those cases, the child/ren & family ought to be afforded the very same "protection" by the government as any other child or family is.
You can keep tossing your opinions into a too-large box, but they're not going to fill it.
You could defend certain Islamic definitions of marriage, where "exclusive reproductive rights" comes directly into play, and therefore a same-sex marriage doesn't fall within the bounds of "marriage." We're not talking about Islamic marriage, so it's moot, but bark up that Islamic marriage tree, defending it if you want.
As far as calling same-sex marriage "marriage" or "civil union" or whatever, personally I think government-sanctioned union between two people, hetero or homosexual ought to be called the same thing. I don't care if the Church calls it marriage or not, but as far as it falls under a government definition, with government-sanctioned rights, it ought to be the same. I'd prefer that all government-sanctioned unions between two people be called "civil unions" (or similar), and "marriage" be a separate thing altogether, but I don't expect that'd happen. Maybe folks taking issue with same-sex "marriage" should start working to separate the term "marriage" from the government, instead of working to exclude people from participating equally in something that ultimately comes down to being a goverment issue. A commitment made under the eyes of God is not the same as a commitment made under the eyes of the government. A Christian couple can get have their civil-union sanctioned by the government, and also be married under the eyes of God. Separately. But again, I don't expect that to happen.
Please don't bother "replying" with your stock question "responses"...I'm not interested in running circles and jumping hoops through your non-discussions. However, if you want to actually engage in conversation, please do.
do you think the government should provides incentives that will encourage the welfare of children?
zoo22
Well-known member
it is no longer an incentive
if
these incentives are available to everyone whether or not they have children
zoo22
Well-known member
How does that differentiate heterosexual marriage from same-sex marriage?
You can keep tossing your opinions into a too-large box, but they're not going to fill it.
a same sex marriage cannot produce a child
zoo22
Well-known member
You can keep tossing your opinions into a too-large box, but they're not going to fill it.
'very often' is not true
or
do you have any figures to back that up?
how can I approve of homosexuals adopting children
if
I do not approve of homosexual activity?
that would not be consistent
zoo22
Well-known member
There aren't a lot of statistics, but (as of the 2000 census) is 8-14,000,000 "very many?"
How Many Children Have Gay Parents in the US?
Even the low end sure seems a lot to me.
Should those millions of children be afforded the same government rights as children of married heterosexuals? Or not?
Fine. And that's something different than the "points" you keep driving at.
But both can raise a child, or not, which, according to you, is what needs the support.
alwight
New member
Responsible governments imo have to take a fiscal and pragmatic position at all times simply to target welfare resources.
I don't agree on the word "incentives" here for that which I see as simply a response to a perceived need. I also don’t think it’s the government’s job to encourage marriage and indeed neither do they as such.
However imo the pragmatic government presumption is that the "married couple" is usually deemed to be the basic family unit of choice, where the responsibility and/or blame can be directed for any children deemed to be legally found within it. IOW to my perhaps cynical eye, it simply suits the government to have such a definition and that is why marriage gets support, not for any higher ideals.
As useful as this may be for government bureaucracy perhaps in targeting welfare but it has very little to do with real people actually wanting to be married, straight or gay, nor in whether or not they actually do have (or adopt) children.:IA:
those numbers are not believable
there have only been 85,000 same sex marriages in the US since 1997, over half of them in California, and if each couple had five kids that would give you less than a half million
so how many same sex couples do you know with children and without children? know any with five?
zoo22
Well-known member
Who said that they're married couples? That estimate is children with gay parents. In 2000, when there was even less option for same-sex marriage.
- Status