The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should be ILLEGAL

[Freodin]

Why don't you post the definition of marriage.
We've been discussing it long enough, you should have a valid definition. Right?

Marriage is a long-term union between two persons, who for all legal and social means count as familiy of the closest kind.

So... and now please post yours!

All I get from gay marriage advocates is that its for two people who love each other, which is clearly a pointless legal endeavor. Why would I be so interested in roommates? I'd much rather support people with children!

The argument AGAIN, goes to some don't have children.

Fine, but we don't have to add the MM and FF all of which are nevers to the MF which are sometimes. We don't have to. We simply do not, and not doing so is bigotry.

That is incorrect. Our currect definition of marriage does not include having children. It is open to couple without children. So it is a right that is given to some, but not all. This is discrimination.

So either we have the option to change the defintion to something that deliberately includes children, or - what I would say is a better option - give advantages to couples with children.

 

[CoderHead]

Why don't you post the definition of marriage. We've been discussing it long enough, you should have a valid definition. Right?

I've already stated my definition of marriage on two different levels - the "spiritual" or emotional level, and the legal level. To argue that government should have a hand at all in defining or regulating marriage deems it a legal institution, whose purpose is to protect the rights of a married couple financially, medically, and with regard to the custody and care of any children brought into the marriage. How does that preclude homosexuals from enjoying the benefits of marriage, as recognized by the government? Once these rights are guaranteed to heterosexuals (which they are), it is discriminatory not to extend them to homosexuals as well - just as it was once considered "logical" not to allow whites and blacks to intermarry.

All I get from gay marriage advocates is that its for two people who love each other, which is clearly a pointless legal endeavor.

It's absolutely not a pointless legal endeavor! Two people sharing their lives together should have the protection of the government to make the decisions that arise as a result of that relationship. It may be pointless to you, because you don't personally like same-sex marriage. That doesn't make it pointless from a rational, logical, or ethical standpoint.

The argument AGAIN, goes to some don't have children.

Yes, it does. Because you either cannot or will not address it in a satisfactory way. If you, on one hand, claim that marriage is only for opposite sex couples who will have children and then, on the other hand, exempt infertile or elderly couples from the rule while at the same time strictly holding homosexuals to it, you're doing nothing but expressing a bigoted personal opinion. You've flip-flopped on this point at least twice now.

Fine, but we don't have to add the MM and FF all of which are nevers to the MF which are sometimes. We don't have to. We simply do not, and not doing so is bigotry.

What? English, please.

Our culture is still one that prefers people to be either celibate or married with children. More and more it is with less children, but that still does not destroy this as a reasonable guide to what marriage is.

Wrong. Our culture says you don't have to wait until you're married to have sex. Our culture says you don't have to only have one sexual partner your whole life. Our culture says you don't have to be married to have kids. Our culture says you don't have to have kids to be married. Our culture says you don't ever have to get married at all if you don't want to. I believe the "culture" you're referring to can only be read about in the Old Testament.

Yes, the fact that not everybody who wants to get married wants to have children absolutely does destroy your argument as a reasonable guide to what marriage is. Sorry, but that's the truth.

 

[JustMeSee]

No, a major part of it is about protecting children.

If it is merely an elitist group of rights for people who love each other, then we should get rid of it, not just add more people, who are even more diverse, to the system.

Please expound on this whole 'protection of children' argument. From what exactly are we protecting children when it comes to the subject?

I apologize it you mentioned it earlier, but this is a long thread filled with confusing and over my head info.

Points I have read:

1. A primary reason for getting married is to have children.
2. The definition of marriage is inflexible, unless it is to meets your needs.
3. Giving homosexuals the right to marry will harm child in an unspecified way.

Without moving the goal post, please answer this question:
What harm is there to children when a homosexual couple gets married?

 

[DeathMagus]

Marriage: A set of legal benefits, privileges, and recognition of an intimate relationship between two people designed to promote the close interpersonal connections that make communities strong.

There's mine.

 

[MoonLancer]

You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

LOL i was just going to say that.

 

[Freodin]

What harm is there to children when a homosexual couple gets married?

Well, there is a social disadvantage to allowing homosexual marriages... as marriages are subject to certain financial advantages, broadening the circle of benefitters reduces the availiable amount for everyone.

But I don´t think that this would have such a huge effect that it would really be of great influence.

 

[nhisname]

Choices? Exactly what 'choices' would these be? The 'choice' to be attracted to someone? The choice to marry the person you love? The choice to raise children with that person? What?

I can assure you, the only choices my wife and I make in respect to our daughter are ones that are in her best interest. Part of what is in her best interest is to be raised by the only two parents she has ever known. To insinuate that gay people don't like children, or make selfish 'choices' to their childrens' detriment is what's cruel, and it's completely unfair of you to do so.

I'm sure you take good care of your child. That's not what I'm getting at.
You have to think about the cruelty of the world the child will have to face once she gets away from the safety of your home. Unless you plan on keeping her sheltered all her childhood once she gets in school and the kids find out or other parents find out people are very cruel. This is all I'm concerned about, is her.I hope it doesn't happen.

 

[yasic]

My definition:

Marriage is a social contract between two consensual persons, which unites them together in the eyes of the law and society as a whole for the purposes of financial reasons, child rearing purposes, medical decisions for the involved parties, and the assignment of property and decisions among the persons.

 

[Freodin]

I'm sure you take good care of your child. That's not what I'm getting at.
You have to think about the cruelty of the world the child will have to face once she gets away from the safety of your home. Unless you plan on keeping her sheltered all her childhood once she gets in school and the kids find out or other parents find out people are very cruel. This is all I'm concerned about, is her.I hope it doesn't happen.

So, what do you propose to do about that?

Keep people from making choices that would other people be "cruel" to your potential children?

Or stop people from being cruel to your potential children?

 

[MoonLancer]

Why don't you post the definition of marriage. We've been discussing it long enough, you should have a valid definition. Right?

You know, you should post yours, mine probably has some errors.

All I get from gay marriage advocates is that its for two people who love each other, which is clearly a pointless legal endeavor. Why would I be so interested in roommates? I'd much rather support people with children!

Yup love is a pointless endeavor.

The argument AGAIN, goes to some don't have children.

as it should. Your argument is flawed, thats why it keeps coming up.

Fine, but we don't have to add the MM and FF all of which are nevers to the MF which are sometimes. We don't have to. We simply do not, and not doing so is bigotry.

hey that's what the bigots who didn't want blacks and whites to marry said.

Our culture is still one that prefers people to be either celibate or married with children. More and more it is with less children, but that still does not destroy this as a reasonable guide to what marriage is.

Then why is it not in the marriage license? oh btw, i got married NOT because i loved her (I do) it was because she had really great health care.

 

[CoderHead]

You have to think about the cruelty of the world the child will have to face once she gets away from the safety of your home.

So...people who have the potential to make a child who will have a big nose, or freckles, or a stutter should be prevented from having children? People are cruel, regardless. If they want to find something to pick on, they'll do it without your help. I think your view is naive and condescending.

 

[pgp_protector]

I'm sure you take good care of your child. That's not what I'm getting at.
You have to think about the cruelty of the world the child will have to face once she gets away from the safety of your home. Unless you plan on keeping her sheltered all her childhood once she gets in school and the kids find out or other parents find out people are very cruel. This is all I'm concerned about, is her.I hope it doesn't happen.

Children are cruel to children that are adopted, No adoption then ?
Children are cruel to children that are disabled, ??
Children are cruel to children that are different in any way, Uniformity, you must comply.


The idea that because children are cruel as an excuse is sad.
If anything it shows that we need education for the children that are being cruel, to stop that behavior.

 

[FlamingFemme]

I'm sure you take good care of your child. That's not what I'm getting at.
You have to think about the cruelty of the world the child will have to face once she gets away from the safety of your home. Unless you plan on keeping her sheltered all her childhood once she gets in school and the kids find out or other parents find out people are very cruel. This is all I'm concerned about, is her.I hope it doesn't happen.

She's 12. She's been in school for 8 years. The only 'problem' she's had is occasionally having to explain that she has two mommies. I suppose living where we do has something to do with that - Luckily there is a shortage of ignorant bigotry up here in the Northeast. Believe me when I tell you that she's fine, and doesn't need your concern although i do appreciate it.

So, if that's your only concern, and it isn't really an issue (and would be less of one if people would raise their children to believe that God loves EVERYONE and just because someone is different does not give you a right to make them miserable), then what problem do you have with a loving same-sex couple getting married?

 

[MoonLancer]

So, what do you propose to do about that?

Keep people from making choices that would other people be "cruel" to your potential children?

Or stop people from being cruel to your potential children?

This is a great point, and hows how silly the argument really is.

 

[fated]

Here's logical:
The problem is that the system should have tiers. One tier is heterosexual couples that might soon have children. Another is other couples. And a third is those who have their own children. Every single one of those tiers is logical.


Using any of these division and excluding the others is likewise logical, and is based on jurisprudence, not logic. But then, you wouldn't be able to call someone illogical.

 

[FlamingFemme]

Children are cruel to children that are adopted, No adoption then ?
Children are cruel to children that are disabled, ??
Children are cruel to children that are different in any way, Uniformity, you must comply.


The idea that because children are cruel as an excuse is sad.
If anything it shows that we need education for the children that are being cruel, to stop that behavior.

Exactly.

 

[fated]

The problem is that the system should have tiers. One tier is heterosexual couples that might soon have children. Another is other couples. And a third is those who have their own children. Every single one of those tiers is logical.

Good jurisprudence says that if someone has an adopted child, they should get some additional support, due to the child, especially if there's a disability, which is actually done. Who should be able to adopt? Normally, I would assume those who already have succeeded would be the prudent choice. Also, barren hetero-couples would make a lot of sense. I don't see how it makes sense to give children to gay couples more than it does to these other two groups.

I've been told that it is a violence to the child to adopt them out to gay couples. I suppose I'll obey that, the government should pour enough money and community support into the system that it doesn't become an issue. Except in extreme cases were the gay couple contains the next of kin, which would seem to make that adoption preferable, also by making for good jurisprudence of not involving the government in close family matters.

Now, this is from another thread, I would love to teach everyone at the same time. I'm trying very hard to remain patient with these students.

There are studies that indicates some difference between the well being between children of same sex couples and those of married couples, sometimes, they are used as a reason to appeal for gay marriage, such as by the APA.

 

[fated]

If we get rid of an institution that asserts that society prefers people to stay together and raise children together as a norm, then we should make a new one. Maybe we should call it "Real Marriage." For people who get married intending to stay together and have children.

 

[nhisname]

Don´t you think that it would be a better way to remove the source of the hurting - that is, the people´s hurting of others - than the assumed cause for their actions.

Just today I read an interesting newspaper article about "mixed" children in Germany after WW2. Children of black soldiers with german women that is... and the harm and "cruel remarks" they had to suffer.

Do you think it would thus be better to prohibit marriages between different ethniticies, or instead change society so that even these unions and their offspring get accepted, or at least not subjected to persecution?

You put the blame on society and I put the blame and responsibility on the idividuals. Society is not going to change because we want it to. That would mean a perfect world, sorry but it's not a perfect world and people are mean and cruel that's a fact of life.
I love children and it hurts me to see little ones taunted and shunned because of bad choices the parents made.

 

[FlamingFemme]

Here's logical:
The problem is that the system should have tiers. One tier is heterosexual couples that might soon have children. Another is other couples. And a third is those who have their own children. Every single one of those tiers is logical.

No, it is NOT logical to have 'tiers'. It would create three separate 'classes' of marriage, when the one that exists now would suit us all just fine. All of the current requirements of marriage apply to homosexual couples as well as heterosexual ones. All of the current benefits of marriage apply to homosexual couples as well as heterosexual ones. Additionally, all of the legal requirements of divorce also apply to both. The relationships are the SAME. We get married for the same reasons you do, stay together for the same reasons you do, and, sadly, also sometimes break-up/divorce for the same reasons you do. There are no differences between the two relationships that would require an entirely different institution.

Once again, not logical.

Using any of these division and excluding the others is likewise logical, and is based on jurisprudence, not logic. But then, you wouldn't be able to call someone illogical.

Though it has been said before:

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."