How would allowing gay marriage make regulating procreation any different than it is today?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Homosexuals and Bisexuals
- Thread starter Jason_240
- Start date
- Status
How do you require someone to procreate?
How do you regulate something without being able to have a law that deals specifically with the thing being regulated?
How are issues specific to heterosexual procreation supposed to be judged if we are not allowed to recognize that there are any such things as issues specific to procreation?
Why are you and others determined to undermine any effort to regulate heterosexual procreation?
Upvote
0
I've never said that. I have continually ceded the point that there are underlying psychological issues that are as yet not fully understood.
Please do not continually acribe things to me simply because you are unwilling to contradict a fellow gay activist. He repeats this accusation daily and it has been explained so many times i have bookmarked my response to deal with what is essentially spam.
Upvote
0
Legitimate how? As in they don't really feel like it despite what they say?
That they are just really bad at expressing their valid arguments and caring opinions?
Or that they really and truly do empathize with the people they deny rights from, and they feel every slur and slant and mistreatment directed at the gays in their bones as if it was done to themselves?
The vast majority of people who believe that gay marriage is a bad idea have not offered one good reason why this is so.
Upvote
0
It puts a nail in the current regulation, making it impossible to fix. There would be little change from how it is today, but what you essentially doing is ignoring the debate that surrounds how it is today and pretending the two things are utterly unrelated.
There are reems of studies and articles about the sordid state of marriage and family these days. That gay activists habitually attempt to set aside any reference to them is just one more indication to me that it is just further socialist attempts to undermine family.
Without families, the state itself gains all that much more authority in the eyes of the public. The weaker and less capable they are, the more everyone is forced to depend on governmental institutions for everything.
Upvote
0
Maybe it would help if you could be more specific. Give me an example of a procreation related issue that marriage regulates.
Upvote
0
Actually they have offered many, and you have repayed their time and effort at trying to communicate with you with accusations concerning their motives and a seemingly purposeful refusal to acknowledge simple, obvious points of distinction.
I have yet to see anyone suggest any alternate reason why gay marriage has not already dominated for all of history all across the globe except to make the weak assertion that all of history, people have been more evil than socialists are now.
It has been as it has been for the simple reason that there was no reason to regulate gay relationships in the same terms as heterosexual relationships.
Upvote
0
Give me an example of anything regarding marriage that is not about regulating procreation.
How can there be this much debate over the simple fact that heterosexuals are the ones who have babies, and marriage has been the institution that has been used to regulate those issues?
Every benefit, every responsibility, every concept of splitting resources and remaining faithful and fulfilling the role of father and mother to the children, all of it, every aspect of it, is all based on the simple, straight forward fact of men and women getting together and having babies.
Where do you get any other explanation for the origin of the institution at all, or why it has almost always been specific to men and women worldwide and throughout history?
Upvote
0
Psudopod
Godspeed, Spacebat
I gave you two, but I don't know if you replied or not. I tend to lose track of busy threads! One would be spressing of difference, which is widely seen throughout history. Gays have always been a minority, and people are often averse to that which is different. Secondly, up until recently, it was important to have as many children as possible to build up the strenght of your country / clan / family etc.
Basically gay people, let alone gay marriage didn't fit well into most societies. I don't see that as valid reason to carry on excluding them though.
Upvote
0
Legal framework.
Family also refers to relationships of various species. Of course "family" has broad applications.
Upvote
0
Look folks, this is getting to be a waste of my time for now. You're all just tossing random questions without taking any responsibility on yourselves to explain your assertions, and most of what you are asking is exceedingly simple to respond to, but would leave me sitting here all day repeating myself for hours.
I have been watching you all make these same assertions for months, and you have nothing to back your assertions about confusion with except more questions. We all know where families come from. The state needs to be allowed the space to regulate accordingly. That's the simple answer.
I have been watching you all make these same assertions for months, and you have nothing to back your assertions about confusion with except more questions. We all know where families come from. The state needs to be allowed the space to regulate accordingly. That's the simple answer.
Upvote
0
Psudopod
Godspeed, Spacebat
[quopte]Legal framework. [/quote]
Can you give me a bit more detail? I've had a long day adn I'm afraid my brain probably isn't running at full speed.
I meant more in the sense that family isn't limited to mum, dad + 2.4 children. It might be many more including grandparents, aunts uncles etc, or it might just be a brother and sister, for example. A gay couple could be considered a family just as easily as fifteen people spread over three generations.
Can you give me a bit more detail? I've had a long day adn I'm afraid my brain probably isn't running at full speed.
I meant more in the sense that family isn't limited to mum, dad + 2.4 children. It might be many more including grandparents, aunts uncles etc, or it might just be a brother and sister, for example. A gay couple could be considered a family just as easily as fifteen people spread over three generations.
Upvote
0
Do you agree with this statement? It is possible for a homosexual man to engage in exclusively heterosexual behavior.
Upvote
0
No. Any "gay" capable of heterosexual behavior is in my opinion more aptly described as bisexual. A bisexual man may well find himself more emotionally comfortable in homosexual relationships though.
I believe the matter is complex and that attempting to limit what words we use to describe it basically simply makes it impossible to discuss accurately.
The term "homosexual orientation" is a fine term to use to denote that one is referring to the trait of being emotionally predisposed to homosexual behavior. However, the term "homosexuality" can refer to either or both, and indeed appears to be widely used in exactly this way.
Upvote
0
Sometimes men and women get together and can't (or decide they don't want to) have babies, but they still love each other want to commit themselves to each other in marriage.
Give me an example of anything regarding marriage that is not about regulating procreation.
How can there be this much debate over the simple fact that heterosexuals are the ones who have babies, and marriage has been the institution that has been used to regulate those issues?
Every benefit, every responsibility, every concept of splitting resources and remaining faithful and fulfilling the role of father and mother to the children, all of it, every aspect of it, is all based on the simple, straight forward fact of men and women getting together and having babies.
Where do you get any other explanation for the origin of the institution at all, or why it has almost always been specific to men and women worldwide and throughout history?
And the law lets them do that.
And it has different rules for married folks filing income taxes than it does for single folks, whether or not the married couple has procreated or will ever procreate. And if one spouse dies his/her property can be willed to his/her spouse tax free, whether or not the couple ever procreated. And if a spouse ever finds herself in the unfortunate situation of being asked to testify against her spouse in court, she can claim the marital communications privilege which will prevent her from having to divulge any confidential communications between her and her spouse during her marriage. These are three examples of "regulations" which apply irrespective of a couple's procreative potential or history.
The modern institution of civil marriage is about two people commiting themselves to one another to form a central family unit. And if they decide to expand their family by having children which they adopt, or conceive through artificial insemination, surrogacy, or sex, they may do so -- and their rights and responsibilites as parents to those children are identical irrespective of how those children came to be.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
David Brider
Well-Known Member
- Aug 18, 2004
- 6,513
- 700
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Greens
Not answered at all.
Despite me asking on many occasions, you've never explained what behaviour you think homosexuality consists of.
Want to try?
David.
Upvote
0
More semantic games. A person who exhibits punctuality is a person who is punctual. Same concept. Punctuality is a behavior -- the behavior of being habitually on time.
What is the point of all of this? I have many times over ceded that homosexuality might be a behavior people have little or not control over in terms of the urge to participate. If that's your issue, you have the point ceded by me from ages back.
Here is a study that both refers to homosexual behavior and undermines the claim that it is some sort of preset orientation.
Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
