Marriage Debate

[thaiboxerken]

The fact that, if the SSM involves two men, it is biologically impossible.

Not at all. Same-sex marriage would not render any man or woman infertile. They can go outside of the marriage to produce offspring.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Not at all. Same-sex marriage would not render any man or woman infertile. They can go outside of the marriage to produce offspring.

Now that you mention it, an organization that helps put female homosexual couples in contact with male homosexual couples, for artificial insemination purposes, might work.

 

[Upchurch]

Not at all. Same-sex marriage would not render any man or woman infertile. They can go outside of the marriage to produce offspring.

In fact, I remember reading something about a new proceedure that would allow lesbians to produce an offspring without the use of sperm. Still haven't found the source, so I didn't bring it up until now.

If this were a viable possibility, would that make any difference to the argument that it is biologically impossible for a SSM to produce biological offspring?

 

[thaiboxerken]

The problem is, the anti-SSM people don't really care about the children. They will look for other excuses to ban same-sex marriage. After all, none of these "procreation" arguments are based on evidence.

 

[Ziggurat]

It matters quite a bit why marriage laws were put into effect if your argument is going to be that the state uses marriage as a method to promote procreation.

As an aside, terms like "obvious" or "common sense" are red-flags to me in debates. They usually indicate that the speaker cannot or has not thought out how something is "obvious" or why it is "common sense". I'm not saying that is the case here, but if it is "obvious", it should be easy to explain and back up with evidence.

In this case, it IS obvious, or at least should be. The state has an interest in promoting and supporting procreation, for the simple reason that bad things happen to states which experience demographic declines, and states have an interest in promoting the welfare of their citizens. I'm not sure how much more basic I have to get than that, and I don't know what piece of that statement you think needs evidence to support it.

Now, a state interest exists INDEPENDENT of whether or not the state acts on that interest, or even if anyone in the state recognizes it as an interest. In our case, the state has an interest in promoting marriage, because marriage enhances the welfare of children raised by married parents, and benefits society as a whole. Do you contest that this benefit exists? If you do not, then the state interest is axiomatic: it does not matter for the argument whether that's why any particular group of people chose to enact whatever marriage laws exist, the interest is still there.

So there's only two factual points here:
1) marriage benefits the welfare of children raised within that context
2) states suffer if they experience demographic decline
That's the factual basis - everything else follows either logically or axiomatically. Do you really need citations for those?

If you consider child rearing to be a part of procreation and you do not consider the ability to conceive a child a requirement to raise a child, then wouldn't it be reasonable to say that same-sex couples can engage in at least part of procreation? Wouldn't it even be reasonable to say that same-sex couples can engage in the majority of procreation act? That is to say, 18+ years out of the required 18 years, 9 months?

Sure. And I even pointed out (repeatedly) that there's an opportunity in this to make a counter-argument, but you're still not actually making it, you're just hinting at it.

This is where we disagree and, really, the heart of the debate. If sexuality were truly irrelevant to marriage law, there would be no sexual requirements to the law. There are sexual requirements, so sexuality is relevant.

No, there are sex requirements to the law. There are NO sexuality requirements to the law. That may be a technicality, but the law often hinges upon technicalities.

For this thread, yes, but this thread is not the reason that a Constitutional amendment has been proposed to keep this one subset of the citizenry from participating in these benefits.

This is, of course, not your argument, but does this raise any warning flags in your head that this one group is being singled out?

If you're looking for acknowledgement that some people are motivated by bigotry, you've got no argument from me. Of course some of them are. And not only have I not presented any argument for a constitutional amendment, I've rather specifically argued that constitutional amendments of any kind are the wrong solution to the problem.

Well, yes "again" in that procreation is even a purpose for marriage law. It is this that no evidence has been provided.

"Purpose" is unimportant and ambiguous, and can even change with time. That change does not invalidate a law. What matters is that there be an interest in the issue covered by the law. And such an interest DOES exist, regardless of whether or not that interest is why the laws in question were established. Like I said: I don't care why things were done in the past, the only relevant question is why we should do them in the future.

As I said, there is no reason to. It is your claim and it is up to you to support it. Until then, I stand by my counter argument. You know, pretty much the only thing in that post you didn't address:

I did address that. I pointed out that there's no discrimination between citizens involved, because sexuality is never used as a test. The only claim on discrimination here is to couples, not individuals, but the government is not under any obligation to treat every group of citizens equal protection, only every individual citizen equal protection. The ONLY units which have ANY constitutional rights are individuals and states - no other units of citizens have any constitutional recognition.

 

[bluess]

In fact, I remember reading something about a new proceedure that would allow lesbians to produce an offspring without the use of sperm. Still haven't found the source, so I didn't bring it up until now.

If this were a viable possibility, would that make any difference to the argument that it is biologically impossible for a SSM to produce biological offspring?

Ah, parthenogenesis. The answer to all our problems. No need for heterosexual donors. If it is good enough for the aphids, its good enough for us!

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

So, once SSM becomes legal and more numerous, even though those same gay people who might have previously married heterosexually and produced children, there will be more children, because they will be artificially inseminated (even though it may be a male-male SSM)?

Gee.......why didn't I figure that out!

No need to produce evidence. That's only required of me.

Wouldn't matter, anyway. Evidence only works if it is proof (which, of course, is impossible).

Not the most friendly guy, are you?

So it is that you think gay marriage makes people behave gay then? If it's allowed then what happens? The gay population will double because of all the men out their just waiting for SS benefits before they follow their hearts?

I'd really like to know if you honestly want gay men to marry women as they used to? If so, it seems to me you'd have to care not a bit about her or her children.

What is it about "today" that eliminated your propensity to be an alcoholic?

Family. The support of family the ability to create a family.

It's not clear to you how much more tolerable life is today for gays? Or is it that you don't think people drink in response to depression and stress? Or is it that you don't rely everyday on the love of your family to make you a better man? I think you're pretending ignorance here.

I mean, gays can actually build lifelong couplings with the person they love. That's been impossible for centuries, and it’s been a great blessing to many of them.

I thought alcoholism was "genetic", not a matter of time.

Sure, the genetic component, for some alcoholics, is relatively well mapped out (Are you suggesting, I'm not related to my great uncle?) But you certainly don't think environment doesn't alter a person's actions, do you? Again, if I took away most people’s family, wouldn’t they have less reason to be productive.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The state has an interest in promoting and supporting procreation, for the simple reason that bad things happen to states which experience demographic declines, and states have an interest in promoting the welfare of their citizens.

This happens to be an argument of yours that the state SHOULD have an interest in procreation. However, does the state ACTUALLY have an interest in procreation? Evidence, please.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Yes, socially, it is.

While abortion rates in the United States is slowly declining now, it skyrocketed between 1969 and 1990.

A sexual revolution was going on, didn't you know?

You claimed it was still going on, what happened for the last 16 years?!

There are more people realizing the folly of the sexual revolution, and fewer people like you.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

There are more people realizing the folly of the sexual revolution, and fewer people like you.

Please explain what harm the sexual revolution caused. Would you prefer returning to a time when women were chattel, unwed mothers were castigated (incidentally, teen pregancy rates were higher than today) and homosexuality was a crime?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
The fact that, if the SSM involves two men, it is biologically impossible.

Not at all. Same-sex marriage would not render any man or woman infertile. They can go outside of the marriage to produce offspring.

Very efficient.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

So, once SSM becomes legal and more numerous, even though those same gay people who might have previously married heterosexually and produced children, there will be more children, because they will be artificially inseminated (even though it may be a male-male SSM)?

Gee.......why didn't I figure that out!

No need to produce evidence. That's only required of me.

Wouldn't matter, anyway. Evidence only works if it is proof (which, of course, is impossible).

Not the most friendly guy, are you?

So it is that you think gay marriage makes people behave gay then? If it's allowed then what happens? The gay population will double because of all the men out there just waiting for SS benefits before they follow their hearts?

I'd really like to know if you honestly want gay men to marry women as they used to? If so, it seems to me you'd have to care not a bit about her or her children.

What is it about "today" that eliminated your propensity to be an alcoholic?

My goodness, it should be clear to you; you've been speaking about it quite a bit. Family. The support of family, the ability to create a family, the duty I have to family.

It's not clear to you how much more tolerable life is today for gays? Or is it that you don't think people drink in response to depression and stress? Or is it that you don't rely everyday on the love of your family to make you a better man? I think you're pretending ignorance here.

I mean, gays can actually build lifelong couplings with the person they love. That's been near impossible for centuries, and it’s been a great blessing to many of them; they had only quick anonymous trysts.

I thought alcoholism was "genetic", not a matter of time.

Sure, the genetic component, for some alcoholics, is relatively well mapped out (Are you suggesting, I'm not related to my great uncle?) But you certainly don't think environment doesn't alter a person's actions, do you? Again, if I took away most people’s family, wouldn’t they have less reason to be productive.

 

[Earthborn]

It does the government no good, but it does politicians a heck of alot of good.

Contradiction... Does not Compute... Does not Compute... Krrr... Contradiction...

 

[Huntster]

Now that you mention it, an organization that helps put female homosexual couples in contact with male homosexual couples, for artificial insemination purposes, might work.

Might.

Might not, too.

And what would the result be with children being raised by two mommies with no daddies, or two daddies with no mommies?

Is this social experiment worth the possible failures?

I've already posted information regarding single parent homes.

 

[Huntster]

The problem is, the anti-SSM people don't really care about the children. They will look for other excuses to ban same-sex marriage. After all, none of these "procreation" arguments are based on evidence.

Unlike your own admitted ideological rants, they most certainly are.

 

[Darat]

Might.

Might not, too.

And what would the result be with children being raised by two mommies with no daddies, or two daddies with no mommies?

Is this social experiment worth the possible failures?

I've already posted information regarding single parent homes.

Well I'd say the social experiment of the "traditional family" i.e. mommy and daddy (product of the 20th century) with both raising the kids hasn't according to you been a rip-roaring success has it?

 

[Cleon]

There are more people realizing the folly of the sexual revolution, and fewer people like you.

Ah, yes, the "silent majority" bit.

Tell me...What exactly in your mind constitutes the "sexual revolution?" Are you referring to something substantial, or is it just some amorphous bogeyman that constitutes everything you don't like? (like born-again Christians and "secular humanism.")

 

[jj]

And what would the result be with children being raised by two mommies with no daddies, or two daddies with no mommies?

Is this social experiment worth the possible failures?

Perhaps you should realize that there are actual numbers available. Perhaps you should try to base your argument on those numbers.

Your argument, however, will have to change substantially to correspond.

And y'all have a nice day, now.

As I don't wish to participate in this discussion, there being no point to it beyond intrusion into individuals' private behaviors in my opinion, I say no more.

 

[Huntster]

Not the most friendly guy, are you?

Nope. And when folks feed me BS, I spit it out. Don't like the taste too much.

So it is that you think gay marriage makes people behave gay then?

I believe it may very well promote any children exposed to it to behave gay, yes.

If it's allowed then what happens?

I don't know, and don't want to find out.

I'd really like to know if you honestly want gay men to marry women as they used to? If so, it seems to me you'd have to care not a bit about her or her children.

What's that supposed to mean? This thread literally drips with people claiming that homosexual parents are absolutely wonderful, caring, and near perfect. Do you now claim otherwise?

What is it about "today" that eliminated your propensity to be an alcoholic?

Family. The support of family the ability to create a family.

Why didn't your gay uncle have a family?

It's not clear to you how much more tolerable life is today for gays?

It's very clear to me, and I'm very happy for that fact.

Or is it that you don't think people drink in response to depression and stress?

I've been a very hard drinker in my life, and have also suffered (like both my parents, and a lot of other people) with depression. I think I have a clue.

Or is it that you don't rely everyday on the love of your family to make you a better man? I think you're pretending ignorance here.

I freely and often profess how my family, and my responsibilities to my wife and children, has likely saved my life numerous times.

I mean, gays can actually build lifelong couplings with the person they love. That's been impossible for centuries, and it’s been a great blessing to many of them.

It has not been impossible for gays to "build lifelong couplings with the person they love" through the centuries. They may not have been able to legally marry, just like I can't marry all the collective loved ones in my life (of both genders).

I thought alcoholism was "genetic", not a matter of time.

Sure, the genetic component, for some alcoholics, is relatively well mapped out (Are you suggesting, I'm not related to my great uncle?) But you certainly don't think environment doesn't alter a person's actions, do you?

Yes, I do. That's why I wonder what would happen if an increasing percentage of children are raised in homosexual households.

 

[Ziggurat]

This happens to be an argument of yours that the state SHOULD have an interest in procreation. However, does the state ACTUALLY have an interest in procreation?

If it should have an interest, it does have an interest. That's what an interest means in this context. You're asking for evidence of something that's a question of definition, not of fact, which is why I've been ignoring you. It's a very different question if you want to ask if any politicians are interested in the issue, and for that I make no claim, nor does my argument depend on the answer to that question.