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.
How would allowing gay marriage make regulating procreation any different than it is today?No, they are not fundamentally different because the law treats them so. They are fundamentally different because it is impossible to regulate matters concerning procreation if you are not allowed to regulate the very set of people for whom it is possible to procreate.
No fault divorce is the reason that people who procreate outside of marriage are not forced to get married, and why people who are married aren't required to procreate?
Is it only a behavior?
It is exceedingly common in these forums for people to just toss these accusations around. I doubt they are legitimate to anyone posting. I doubt they are legitimate to the vast majority of people who believe gay marriage is a bad idea.
How would allowing gay marriage make regulating procreation any different than it is today?
Maybe it would help if you could be more specific. Give me an example of a procreation related issue that marriage regulates.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?
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.
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.
Maybe it would help if you could be more specific. Give me an example of a procreation related issue that marriage regulates.
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.
I'm still not seeing how though. How does allowing gay marriage remove the concept of family, given that family is currently a very broad and variable term?
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?
Not all hetrosexuals have babies, quite a lot don't for one reason or another. The institution manages fine for them. And quite a lot of hetrosexuals have children under their care, whether their own babies or adopted ones.
Family also refers to relationships of various species. Of course "family" has broad applications.
Do you agree with this statement? It is possible for a homosexual man to engage in exclusively heterosexual behavior.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.
Do you agree with this statement? It is possible for a homosexual man to engage in exclusively heterosexual behavior.
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?