"Gathering Storm" Ad in Iowa

[IzzyPop]

If you were correct about marriage being solely about property, I would expect to see many, many more marriages between business partners of the same gender. You seem to be missing a vital aspect of the concept of marriage.

Not at all. We even have a term for it amongst the heterosexuals: gold digger. Why shouldn't we allow same sex gold digging, as well?

 

[Andreusz]

*Bump* To Brightmorningstar:

I have great difficulty understanding what you are trying to say. Would the following be an acceptable representation of your point of view?

"Same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry, because they cannot reproduce, and their inability to reproduce comes about because they are of the same sex.
Opposite-sex couples where one or both members are infertile may, howwever, marry, even though they cannot reproduce, because their inability to reproduce is not caused by their sex."

 

[Belk]

Belk and Veyrlian, specifically,

Do not make the mistake of putting all of this defining on me. Heterosexual people who have had sex bring their disputes to the government, not the other way around. They eventually end up codified one way or the other.

The difference is simply a difference in the reality of the situation. You want to change the names of various things so that gays get "marriage"? Fine, then the laws will change (after a bunch of shuffling), and there will eventually be a new set specific to heterosexuals.

Sounds good to me. Lets get started.

Why go through the trouble? Marriage is what it is. People are always going to distinguish between homosexuals and heterosexuals. They two types of couples do not share many of the same issues.

Because marriage as it currently stands includes a lot mor then just those things thart are only pertinent to hetersexuals. A lot of the things that are currently included in marriage would be extremly helpfull to homosexuals as well. I, personally, can not think of any issues that are regulated in law that are exclusive to heterosexuals. Perhaps you could help me out with a couple?

A second question just occured to me. If marriage is simply about regulating behavior between people how is allowing gays marriage going to have any effect on this codiefied behavior? They would simply be subject to laws that do not pertain to them.

What I see is a lot of people claiming marriage no longer means anything important despite the fact that multiple angles of research suggest (not prove, but suggest) that it is far from having passed away.

I do not see anyone claiming that. I see a lot of peoiple claiming that allowing gays to marry is not going to destry the institution of marriage.

http://www.citrix.com/site/SS/downloads/index.asp
Kids need both parents. Both parents still need certain protections, certain specific rights and obligations in many cases.

Do both parents have to be the oppasite sex?

You want to find a handful of issues with that and then toss the whole thing overboard. I do not see the use in this. Whatever issues gays have should be resolved separately from the distinct institution of marriage.

I do not see it as a handful of situations. I see it as being the mahjority of rules and rights around marriage being applicable. If you have evidence or logic to the contrary I would be happy to hear it.

 

[Archer93]

This seems incredibly misleading to me. Are you stating that gays are promising to stop having pre-marital or extramarital intercourse if gay marriages are instituted? I think not.

No. I am not saying that. Why do you think I am?[/quote]

You are mischaracterizing both what I said and what the gay marriage agenda is all about.

I am replying to what you have written. It is possible that I have misunderstood your position, but you seem to be saying that same sex marriage is out because they don't have children (demonstrably false), and because opposite sex marriage is in a parlous condition.
As for 'What the gay marriage agenda is all about'- you have declared on several occasions that the gay marriage 'agenda' is nothing more than a deliberate attack on Christianity. That's a mischaracterisation. My desciption of it as being an on-going attempt to gain the legal protections available to their opposite sex conterparts is not.

One of the most telling bits of your post is the fall back to the position that society has no interest in regulating child care issues through limiting sexual behaviors.

It might theoretically have an interest in it, although that is getting close to eugenics, but currently THE LAW (and that is what we are talking about, LEGAL rights) does no such thing. It does not regulate child care issues through limiting sexual behaviours

You say marriage is about limiting sex but refuse to mention why that is.

Where did I say that?

It is a direct result of wanting to regulate child care issues. Sexual behaviors have been some of the most regulated in our history precisely because of this. It is only since the advent of socialist thought that anyone supported blind and wide ranging deregulation of sex. This has been the very socialist policy that I repeatedly state has already harmed the institution of marriage. I see no reason to follow this course to its logical conclusion of the utter destruction of a civilization by allowing yet another deregulation to occur when we have not even addressed the problems of previous deregulation in the arena of marriage and family law.

The best way to regulate child care would be to issue licenses to breed, and make unlicenced childbirth illegal. This would, of course, be a dreadful violation of human rights, and would be a Socialist-type policy in that it would bring childbirth under state control.
Deregulating things is not Socialist. Increasing the individual's freedoms is not socialist. Getting the government involved at all with matters of individual conscience such as marriage, divorce and child-raising is, in fact, much more socialist than not.
Some government involvement is necessary as long as it limits itself to ensuring that material suffering, at least, is kept to a minimum should the marriage end. Anything else, telling people who they may or may not marry, whether or not they should have children and how many, is decidedly Socialist.

 

[Belk]

To Blek,

I know this was an unintentional typo, but it still made me LOL

I understand your worldview on this but I woulod say its illogical. The fact is the human species has two sexes which reproduce sexually. One of the way this understading is the use of the word gender instead of sex. The birth certificates still identify the sex of the baby, not the gender.

Main Entry: gender
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: grammatical rules applying to nouns that connote sex or animateness
Synonyms: common, feminine, gender-specific, masculine, neuter
Notes: gender is the properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles; sex is either of the two categories, male or female, into which most organisms are divided

That it requires both sexes, male and female to reproduce in sexual intercourse determines what sex is. Sex therefore isnt just any arousal or gratification stimulated, but intercourse between the sexes. Your worldview would probably include oral and anal sex as sex, but thats just the use of one sexual organ with another organ (unless of course you would say the mouth and anus are sexual organs)

No, that is what is required for reproduction. It is not the sum total of sex.

Under our worldview which is not just the Chistian one but also a much more clealry logical one, a marriage would have to be between each of the two sexes. There is no piont in having two sexes if a union can be formed between only one sex, and the point is the only true union can be formed with male and female because that union is the only one that can reproduce.

Why does marriage need to be limited to the group that is capable of procreation?

If procreation is important why are people in this group not required to procreate?

 

[beechy]

It's simple. Men and women reproduce. In order to regulate reproductive issues, the state needs to be able to regulate those who reproduce. The fact that some men and women do not reproduce does not change the fact that the ones who do reproduce would have to be governed by a law concerning men and women exclusively, since those are the people who reproduce.

Reproductive issues and lines of authority and responsibility are separate from simple matters of affection or sexual intimacy. The latter do not need much regulation, nor in fact do most people want them heavily regulated these days. But, even in times such as ours, once there are children in the picture, the state gets dragged into the matter if anything goes bad, and no one has any sympathy for the state if it whines that "marriage" is an outmoded institution. They want a state enforced resolution, and they want it last week. Governmental officials who refuse to meet this demand will eventually lose office.

Marriage is the set of regulations traditionally reserved to deal with issues of men, women, reproduction, and other things specific to that line of legal conflict. Introducing extraneous elements into it undermines any effort whatsoever to maintain marriage as a form of regulation. It becomes merely symbolic at that point. Furthermore, the state will then have to go to the extra expense and trouble of re-inventing the wheel to regulate something that laws already existed to regulate -- reproduction and family lines of responsibility.

"But some sterile hippopotamuses have been married in Beijing!"

Fine... fine. But just wait until they file for divorce.

Straight couples can have children without getting married. If an unmarried straight couple has children, there is nothing in the law which requires them to get married.

Same-sex couples can also have children. They can't produce those children through sex with one another, but they can become parents nonetheless.

Man + Man + two adorable children = family. Line of authority and responsibility: Man + Man = responsible for their kids.

Man + Woman + two adorable children = family. Line of authority and responsibility: Man + Woman = responsible for their kids.

 

[beechy]

No, that’s the fertility, heart of the issue is the sex combination because it cant reproduce.

But an infertile couple can reproduce?

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Schools are usually trying to teach tolerance and understanding.

Doesn't seem like its working seeing the current conditions of our youth right now.


Tolerance for the sake of tolerance isn't always a good idea either. A good amount of things in this world we do not tolerate. That is why we have laws.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Belk,
Firstly thanks for your gracious forgiveness of my typo.
Your definition is also valid, though this recognises things are changing gender - definition of gender by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

No, that is what is required for reproduction. It is not the sum total of sex.

yes according to your worldview and no not according to mine. The reproductive organs are the sexual reproductive organs.

Why does marriage need to be limited to the group that is capable of procreation?

It doesn’t have to even be limited to humans, it could include humans and animals, but as I said, it makes sense to limit it to this. Certainly other groups can be the same except for reproduction.

If procreation is important why are people in this group not required to procreate?

Because procreation isn’t a requirement, it’s the difference between the two groups of couples.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Beechy,

But an infertile couple can reproduce?

No, neither can a fertile one.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Beechy,
by the way you didnt specify the sex combination of the infertile couple so neither did I in my answer, I was considering a fertile same sex couple. For reproduction one needs male and female.

 

[Belk]

To Belk,
Firstly thanks for your gracious forgiveness of my typo.
Your definition is also valid, though this recognises things are changing gender - definition of gender by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Words do tend to change in meaning over time. This is the natural order of things.

yes according to your worldview and no not according to mine. The reproductive organs are the sexual reproductive organs.

It doesn’t have to even be limited to humans, it could include humans and animals, but as I said, it makes sense to limit it to this. Certainly other groups can be the same except for reproduction.

Why does it make sense to limit it to heterosexual couples?

Because procreation isn’t a requirement, it’s the difference between the two groups of couples.

It is one of many differences. Why do you feel this difference should keep two gays from getting married?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Belk,

Why does it make sense to limit it to heterosexual couples?

Why would you want to give same sex couples the same status as male/female when they cant reproduce which is the natural result of sexual intercourse between the male and female sexes of the species?
Furthermore why have two sexes if the union of one is sufficient… even though it isnt.

It is one of many differences. Why do you feel this difference should keep two gays from getting married?

what other differences are there? And again, why should why should a couple who aren’t the same be treated the same?

 

[Belk]

To Belk,
Why would you want to give same sex couples the same status as male/female when they cant reproduce which is the natural result of sexual intercourse between the male and female sexes of the species?
Furthermore why have two sexes if the union of one is sufficient… even though it isnt.

Because modern marriage is about the family. Homosexuals have families as well and they want the same rights and protections that heterosexual couples have.

what other differences are there? And again, why should why should a couple who aren’t the same be treated the same?

Because within the U.S. that is the law. You have taken one difference, that homosexuals can not procreate with each other, and declare because of this difference homosexuals can not get married. Why do people have to be able to procreate to get married?

 

[OllieFranz]

I think I finally figured out what brightmorningstar is actually saying, and why he makes a distinction between the "dysfunction" of man-on-man sex and the "malfunction" of infertile man-woman couples. His argument is not based on an inate inability to conceive, which is why he gets so frustrated at the constant counter-argument to that argument.

His argument is actually a variation of the "The Parts Don't Fit" argument. His complaint is that there is nowhere for the little spermies to go to find an egg to fertilize, and so there is no reason to send them out on a fruitless trip.

The problem with this argument, however, is twofold 1) procreation is not the only reason for sex. In fact it is often the last thing on a couple's minds; and 2) although it is an important aspect of a marriage, sex is not the primary reason for marriage, particularly not civil marriage.

Ultimately this leads to the same equal rights arguments for same-sex civil marriage, but the initial path is not through a consideration of infertile couples, but through 1 Corinthians 7: if a major purpose of marriage is to allow the sex drive a non-sinful outlet, then denying this outlet to same-sex couples is tantamout to deliberately starving someone else to death while you pig out in front of him.

 

[beechy]

Because procreation isn’t a requirement, it’s the difference between the two groups of couples.

Um, but why is that difference material?

 

[beechy]

To Beechy,
No, neither can a fertile one.

So how is an infertile heterosexual couple different than a fertile or infertile homosexual couple?

 

[beechy]

His argument is actually a variation of the "The Parts Don't Fit" argument. His complaint is that there is nowhere for the little spermies to go to find an egg to fertilize, and so there is no reason to send them out on a fruitless trip.

Is there a reason for a husband to send his little spermies on a fruitless trip in his infertile wife?

 

[beechy]

To Belk,
Why would you want to give same sex couples the same status as male/female when they cant reproduce which is the natural result of sexual intercourse between the male and female sexes of the species?

Why would you want to give infertile opposite sex couples the same status as fertile opposite sex couples when they can't reproduce which is the natural result of sexual intercourse between the male and female sexes of the species?

Furthermore why have two sexes if the union of one is sufficient… even though it isnt.

Human beings require both sexes to procreate. But two people of any sex can raise a child and create a family that is developed through something other than procreation with one another. My cousin was adopted by my aunt and uncle because they couldn't have children of their own. They needed him, he needed them. Worked out great!

what other differences are there?

What do you mean?

And again, why should why should a couple who aren’t the same be treated the same?

Woah. Why should the one black kid in the classroom be treated the same as the other white kids? Why should the Muslim family down the street be treated the same as the Christian families on the rest of the block?

 

[mpok1519]

the legal definition of marriage has nothing to do with whether or not a couple can procreate, or whether or not sexual organs fit into each other.

it should reflect not the traditional function of marriage, but reflect upon the genuine traditional existence of love itself.