"Gathering Storm" Ad in Iowa

[beechy]

No one argues fertility is the issue except gay marriage activists. It is about the ability to deal directly with the issue of children actually being born and the related issues between those who are capable of doing any such thing.

No one argues reproduction is the issue except anti- gay marriage activitists. There are at least two things that will prevent two people from reproducing together: (1) they are both of the same sex; and (2) one or both of them are infertile. If we're going to talk about reproduction, we need to understand why (1) and (2) are materially different -- IOW, we need to talk about fertility.

I think marriage is about (among other things, like commitment and love) the ability to deal directly with the issue of children being raised and cared for.

As has been pointed out numerous times, since marriage is supposed to happen before sex, it would be inconvenient to ever discover someone was sterile until afterwards.

Please cite the law which says only married people can have sex.

In some cultures, it has indeed been grounds for divorce, so that more or less completes the circle.

Do you think it should be true in our culture? Is marriage a cultural issue?

If you want it to be grounds for automatic state enforced divorce, be my guest.

Do you? If not, why not?

 

[BigBadWlf]

No one argues fertility is the issue except gay marriage activists.

“All you have done is prove my point, it takes a man and a woman to provide the egg and sperm.” http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-73/#post51490211

“because only male/female can reproduce” http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-73/#post51488671

“Because the kids come from heterosexuals. People are supposed to marry, have kids, and raise them. If marriage is to encourage this, it has to be about heterosexuals.” http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-76/#post51503781

“Clearly no one on the gay marriage side cares about kids.” http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-76/#post51503781

“Everyone here knows why marriage has always been for heterosexuals, and it is not because of bigotry. It's because that's where families come from.” http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-76/#post51503781

"I was considering a fertile same sex couple. For reproduction one needs male and female." http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-72/#post51477568

"In order to regulate those issues, the state needs to be allowed to have laws specific to the issue of reproduction." http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-69/#post51442351

"It's simple. Men and women reproduce. In order to regulate reproductive issues, the state needs to be able to regulate those who reproduce." http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-69/#post51436553

"Logic doesn't enter into your opposition to allowing us to distinguish between relationships that do and do not have to do with reproduction." http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-69/#post51442351

"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" http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-69/#post51436553

"That it requires both sexes, male and female to reproduce in sexual intercourse" http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-70/#post51465592

"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." http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-69/#post51436553

"the point is the only true union can be formed with male and female because that union is the only one that can reproduce." http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-70/#post51465592

“Why? because they reproduce.” http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-76/#post51503781

"Why would you want to give same sex couples the same status as male/female when they cant reproduce" http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-72/#post51478607

And this is just from the last few pages of this single thread

It is about the ability to deal directly with the issue of children actually being born and the related issues between those who are capable of doing any such thing.

You mean fertility.

Again why are not infertile heterosexuals discriminated against?

As has been pointed out numerous times, since marriage is supposed to happen before sex, it would be inconvenient to ever discover someone was sterile until afterwards.

Yet heterosexuals who know they are infertile are allowed to be married. Why are these people denied the right to marry?

In some cultures, it has indeed been grounds for divorce, so that more or less completes the circle. If you want it to be grounds for automatic state enforced divorce, be my guest.

Can you cite United States law that says infertility is grounds for divorce?

 

[Shane Roach]

No one argues reproduction is the issue except anti- gay marriage activitists. There are at least two things that will prevent two people from reproducing together: (1) they are both of the same sex; and (2) one or both of them are infertile. If we're going to talk about reproduction, we need to understand why (1) and (2) are materially different -- IOW, we need to talk about fertility.

No one argues reproduction is the issue though. Gay marriage activists make that up. We argue that marriage is about reproduction among many things, and that since it is indeed about that there needs to be the preservation of that unique concept in the laws surrounding it.

Please cite the law which says only married people can have sex.

This is the hilarious thing. That does not exist anymore thanks to this same sort of anti-marriage political ploy. We were told no fault divorces would help women, and instead women are still in the same position they have ever been. They still even stay in violent relationships for money, and statistically those violent relationships tend to be the ones who are not married.

Yet they still have all the same vulnerabilities and needs they have ever had, but we are not allowed to distinguish between those unequal relationships vs perfectly balanced homosexual relationships because gays delicate sensitivities are offended any time someone points out they are slightly different.

So who cares about battered women or kids needing role models. Let's just make the gays happy!

I find myself suddenly converted! After all, that's the only viewpoint allowed around here anymore.

 

[Shane Roach]

“All you have done is prove my point, it takes a man and a woman to provide the egg and sperm.” http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-73/#post51490211

“because only male/female can reproduce” http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-73/#post51488671

“Because the kids come from heterosexuals. People are supposed to marry, have kids, and raise them. If marriage is to encourage this, it has to be about heterosexuals.” http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-76/#post51503781

“Clearly no one on the gay marriage side cares about kids.” http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-76/#post51503781

“Everyone here knows why marriage has always been for heterosexuals, and it is not because of bigotry. It's because that's where families come from.” http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-76/#post51503781

"I was considering a fertile same sex couple. For reproduction one needs male and female." http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-72/#post51477568

"In order to regulate those issues, the state needs to be allowed to have laws specific to the issue of reproduction." http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-69/#post51442351

"It's simple. Men and women reproduce. In order to regulate reproductive issues, the state needs to be able to regulate those who reproduce." http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-69/#post51436553

"Logic doesn't enter into your opposition to allowing us to distinguish between relationships that do and do not have to do with reproduction." http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-69/#post51442351

"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" http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-69/#post51436553

"That it requires both sexes, male and female to reproduce in sexual intercourse" http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-70/#post51465592

"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." http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-69/#post51436553

"the point is the only true union can be formed with male and female because that union is the only one that can reproduce." http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-70/#post51465592

“Why? because they reproduce.” http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-76/#post51503781

"Why would you want to give same sex couples the same status as male/female when they cant reproduce" http://www.christianforums.com/t7357291-72/#post51478607

And this is just from the last few pages of this single thread




You mean fertility.

Again why are not infertile heterosexuals discriminated against?



Yet heterosexuals who know they are infertile are allowed to be married. Why are these people denied the right to marry?


Can you cite United States law that says infertility is grounds for divorce?

And you again demonstrate your insistance that it is all about reproduction only and not about other things unique to the male female relationship together IN the reproductive process.

Very transparent. Lots of effort though, kudos on that.

 

[beechy]

No one argues reproduction is the issue though. Gay marriage activists make that up. We argue that marriage is about reproduction among many things, and that since it is indeed about that there needs to be the preservation of that unique concept in the laws surrounding it.

You've argued that the reason gay couples are different from straight couples is because they can't reproduce. I wouldn't bring up the question of infertile straight couples if you did not make that argument.

This is the hilarious thing.

You've got a twisted sense of humor.

That does not exist anymore thanks to this same sort of anti-marriage political ploy. We were told no fault divorces would help women, and instead women are still in the same position they have ever been. They still even stay in violent relationships for money, and statistically those violent relationships tend to be the ones who are not married.

Yet they still have all the same vulnerabilities and needs they have ever had, but we are not allowed to distinguish between those unequal relationships vs perfectly balanced homosexual relationships because gays delicate sensitivities are offended any time someone points out they are slightly different.

So who cares about battered women or kids needing role models. Let's just make the gays happy!

I find myself suddenly converted! After all, that's the only viewpoint allowed around here anymore.

What does no fault divorce have to do with whether unmarried couples can have sex?

 

[Shane Roach]

You've argued that the reason gay couples are different from straight couples is because they can't reproduce. I wouldn't bring up the question of infertile straight couples if you did not make that argument.

I bring it up in a context you consistently manage to ignore.

What does no fault divorce have to do with whether unmarried couples can have sex?

You asked a different question than that. You asked if it was illegal to have sex before marriage, and I pointed out that the weakening of marriage is why that is no longer the case. No fault divorce is just another step along the way. Now comes gay marriage.

Anti-family activists always like to segment things out, pretend they are unrelated. They don't like it when you point out something is actually a part of a trend, and not an isolated subject all its own. It makes it more difficult to obfuscate by asking the same question over and over no matter how many times it has been answered.

 

[Shane Roach]

What should we do when people have a kid out of wedlock? Should the child just be a ward of the state? Should they be given the option of marrying? If they decide not to marry, are the completely free of responsibilities to each other, the child, and society?

Are we not allowed to distinguish between this and adoption?

Are we not allowed to distinguish between issues that arise from biological inevitabilities and issues that arise from rare and occasional sexually perverse relationships?

How is someone's sexual perversion or related romances automatically the same thing as two people who have a direct part in having a child? We're not allowed to distinguish between these two things at all why?

For whose benefit? For the child's you pretend?

No, I think not.

 

[beechy]

What should we do when people have a kid out of wedlock? Should the child just be a ward of the state?

The child becomes a ward of the state if both parents sign away their parental rights. They have no obligation to do so unless a social worker decides the parent(s) are unfit (as often happens, for example, if the baby is born with cocaine in her system). If they keep the child they can raise her in our outside of marriage. With one parent or two.

Should they be given the option of marrying?

They have that option.

If they decide not to marry, are the completely free of responsibilities to each other, the child, and society?

Nope. Unless they sign away their rights to the child, in which case the baby becomes a ward of the state, or (in the case of open adoption) (s)he may be adopted by the person/people whom the birth parents have chosen.

Are we not allowed to distinguish between this and adoption?

Between what and adoption? (See my answers above)

Are we not allowed to distinguish between issues that arise from biological inevitabilities and issues that arise from rare and occasional sexually perverse relationships?

The questions you posed above are all readily answerable. Who I have sex with and whether you approve of that person has nothing to do with whether my partner and I end up adopting a baby or conceiving one through artificial insemination.

How is someone's sexual perversion or related romances automatically the same thing as two people who have a direct part in having a child? We're not allowed to distinguish between these two things at all why?

I wholeheartedly disagree that the fact of my partner's gender makes our romantic relationship perverse. Marriage is about commitment, love, responsibility, mutuality, and family. This is true for gay and straight couples with or without children.

I freely admit that the difference between my relationship and a heterosexual relationship is that my partner is the same sex as I am. I also freely admit that this means we can't have children through sex with each other.

I don't see why our gender difference is a difference that should matter with respect to whether or not we can get married. You say that gender difference matters because if one of us was a man then we could reproduce and marriage is about regulating reproduction.

I've pointed out that that's not necessarily true, because (1) it is quite possible that if one of us was a man then we still wouldn't be able to reproduce because there's no guarantee that we are fertile; and (2) people reproduce all the time without being regulated by marriage and there is nothing in the law which requires them to get married before reproducing. In sum, because of (1) and (2), my argument is that the gender composition of my relationship -- while it might make you uncomfortable -- should not be a basis for denying us the ability to get married.

 

[BigBadWlf]

And you again demonstrate your insistance that it is all about reproduction only and not about other things unique to the male female relationship together IN the reproductive process.

Very transparent. Lots of effort though, kudos on that.

You claimed: “No one argues fertility is the issue except gay marriage activists.”
Direct quotes from your own posts, and the posts of some others show this not to be true.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I bring it up in a context you consistently manage to ignore.





You asked a different question than that. You asked if it was illegal to have sex before marriage, and I pointed out that the weakening of marriage is why that is no longer the case. No fault divorce is just another step along the way. Now comes gay marriage.

Anti-family activists always like to segment things out, pretend they are unrelated. They don't like it when you point out something is actually a part of a trend, and not an isolated subject all its own. It makes it more difficult to obfuscate by asking the same question over and over no matter how many times it has been answered.

“anti-family activists” are the ones trying to come up with reasons why the families of some minority groups are not really families at all and the ones trying to justify marriage discrimination

 

[BigBadWlf]

What should we do when people have a kid out of wedlock?

I generally say “congratulations” and “what a beautiful baby you have” which is exactly the same thing I say to a married couple who has a child

Are we not allowed to distinguish between this and adoption?

According to the same family law you are always going on about an adopted child is considered no different from a child a couple gives birth to.
Why should adopted children be considered ‘different’?

Are we not allowed to distinguish between issues that arise from biological inevitabilities and issues that arise from rare and occasional sexually perverse relationships?

What ever perversion a married heterosexual couple has is their business so long as they both consent and no children are innovated in their sexual activities

How is someone's sexual perversion or related romances automatically the same thing as two people who have a direct part in having a child? We're not allowed to distinguish between these two things at all why?

Again you are saying “its all about reproduction”. I should add this post to the list I wrote up

For whose benefit? For the child's you pretend?


No, I think not.

Explain how the children of same gendered couples benefit form discrimination

 

[beechy]

I bring it up in a context you consistently manage to ignore.

Reproduction happens in and outside the context of marriage. While you seem clear on reproduction within a marriage, you seem a bit confused that it also can happen outside of marriage.

You asked a different question than that. You asked if it was illegal to have sex before marriage, and I pointed out that the weakening of marriage is why that is no longer the case. No fault divorce is just another step along the way. Now comes gay marriage.

Can you cite me an historic US law that makes it illegal to have sex outside of marriage? Do you think it should be illegal to have sex outside of marriage?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To b&wpac4,

Name one

I can name a number, one is Shane Roach.
I am sure you can name some who can understand you. What is your point now I have shown your accusation is false?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Beechy,

Insofar as marriage is about the very personal decision to commit yourself to a partner of your choosing, and a gay person wouldn't choose an opposite sex partner (as you've acknowledged), a law which restricts people from marrying same sex partners effectively restricts the ability of gay people to marry the partner they would choose. Before the law does something so impactful, it should have a permissible reason for doing so.

Let me repeat your statement is not quite right. The people you consider ‘gay’ can get married, it is just that they don’t want to as their sexual desires are for same sex.
And yes you are also right in that it effectively restricts the ability of who you call gay people to marry the same sex person they choose.
But that’s not what we are disputing, married men and woman are still essentially by law restricted to a sexual relationship only with their spouse, and for example paedophiles are restricted by law from sex with the children they want sex with. What we are in disagreement with is whether same sex relationships are to be allowed. Most of the debate is not about whether same sex partnerships should be allowed, which is what we contest, but why they aren’t which is what you contest.

It is not a prerequisite, it has never been a prerequisite, and I don't think it should be a prerequisite.

Ok that’s what we believe so please don’t tell us that’s what we as saying, it is not. It is not a prerequisite but it is the difference way the two are not the same and should not be treated the same.

You're the one who brought up animals. I have no idea what they have to do with anything.

I was asking you where your boundary was, I see it as man and woman.

 

[Shane Roach]

Reproduction happens in and outside the context of marriage. While you seem clear on reproduction within a marriage, you seem a bit confused that it also can happen outside of marriage.

How do you come to the conclusion that I believe it cannot happen outside of marriage? I've never said any such ridiculous thing. Are you arguing that it has not been the thousands of years long tradition until fairly recently in history to marry before having sex?

I'll answer questions from you again when they are not preceded by something like this. This appears to be random nonsense, and though I imagine it breaks no rules I find it offensive nonetheless.

 

[Skaloop]

How do you come to the conclusion that I believe it cannot happen outside of marriage? I've never said any such ridiculous thing. Are you arguing that it has not been the thousands of years long tradition until fairly recently in history to marry before having sex?

You got any stats to support that? Sure, it may have been the intention, but can you show that it actually worked for those thousands of years? That people weren't having pre-marital sex?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Skaloop,

You got any stats to support that? Sure, it may have been the intention, but can you show that it actually worked for those thousands of years? That people weren't having pre-marital sex?

Shane has asked a question, have you got any stats to support your question?

 

[beechy]

Ok that’s what we believe so please don’t tell us that’s what we as saying, it is not. It is not a prerequisite but it is the difference way the two are not the same and should not be treated the same.

Why shouldn't they be treated the same?

I was asking you where your boundary was, I see it as man and woman.

I would lift the gender restriction and leave everything else the same.

 

[Skaloop]

To Skaloop,
Shane has asked a question, have you got any stats to support your question?

The fact that these days over 90% of people have sex before getting married. Why would it have been much different in the past? Even if it were half that rate back in the old days, it still shows that marriage doesn't exactly prevent pre-marital sex.

 

[beechy]

How do you come to the conclusion that I believe it cannot happen outside of marriage? I've never said any such ridiculous thing. Are you arguing that it has not been the thousands of years long tradition until fairly recently in history to marry before having sex?

No, I'm not arguing that. I haven't done a lot of research into world wide premarital sex statistics throughout the history of mankind (assuming, which it would be crazy to do, that such statistics exist). Irrespective of what you think "traditional" sex practices have been throughout history (maybe nobody has had premarital sex before us promiscuous Americans, maybe everybody did), given that for at least the past 50 years just about everybody has sex before marriage in the United States, do you think the government should try to change that by passing and enforcing laws which require that sex only happen within marriage?