The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should be ILLEGAL

[CoderHead]

The idea of marriage is a union between the man and the woman because the man and the woman are the two sexes of the species that reproduce. There is no alternative, there would be no need for two sexes if one sex could reproduce. Now consider that, in what way is a woman needed that couldnt be done just by a man? How many sexes are there in the species?

Again, you're trying to define "marriage" as a union that will bring forth children. Reproduction is not a prerequisite for marriage, even in heterosexual couples. Do you deny that?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To CoderHead,
I don’t mean to pick on you when you are debating the same as what others say, but so graciously, but the answer to your subsequent questions is the same.

In California. How about Missouri? How about Louisiana? The entire population of the U.S. doesn't reside in California and Iowa.

But the species still has two sexes whatever state or country, male and female, why have two when you sya one will do in a relationship?

Actually, if they're given the same rights I'm fine with that. I don't really care what it's called, although some do resent the "separate-but-equal" differentiation.

All men and woman have the same right to get married and all men and women who call themselves homosexual are still men and woman.

It's a legal contract, why would clergy or churches need to be involved? When I got married, I never stepped foot into a church.

True but whatever contract some people draw up as opposed to others, there are still two sexes in the species when it comes to sexual reproduction.

Why not? My heterosexual marriage was.

By heterosexual you mean man and woman?

 

[ziggy29]

It wasn’t that long ago that marriage was between two people of differing gender but same race.

Yes, the legal, secular definition of marriage -- not the Scriptural definition.

Which to me is all the more reason to not muddy the waters where the word "marriage" is concerned. Secular civil unions and sacred church-blessed unions are two largely different things that just happen to have a few overlapping tendencies. I don't think it's a good idea to refer to both types as the same thing, regardless of whether its a same-sex or opposite-sex union.

Man's law can change the definition of a secular, civil union. God's law is constant and unchanging.

 

[katholikos]

They don’t have the right to select the partner they choose and say I’m marrying this person.....

Guess what: NEITHER DO I. I am a man and I can't marry another man either. I can't marry my sister if I want to, I can't marry my mom if I want to, I can't have a threesome marriage if I want to..... ....there are laws in this country, and they apply to everyone.

And AGAIN I am going to repeat what I said earlier:

They have equal rights. There is no right that I have that they do not have. What you are attempting to do is change the meaning of the word "marriage".

And that is what is bogus about this whole conversation. In California, we already have same-sex unions and they enjoy rights that married couples have. Prop 8 did not change that. The problem is that they want to call their unions "marriage" - in other words, they want to change the definition of the word "marriage".

So once again, the truth of this issue is not being told.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

They don’t have the right to select the partner they choose and say I’m marrying this person.

But their choice isnt natural or functional. To justify it on has to change the meaning of marriage to partnership, sex to gender and sex to a desire rather than a function.
They do have the choice to select the partner they choose from anyone of the opposite sex, to select someone of the same sex is to select a friend.

 

[brightmorningstar]

TO CoderHead,

Again, you're trying to define "marriage" as a union that will bring forth children.

Yes, and you are trying to define the same for one that cant. Otherwise why have the two sexes ?

 

[Psudopod]

Guess what: NEITHER DO I. I am a man and I can't marry another man either. I can't marry my sister if I want to, I can't marry my mom if I want to, I can't have a threesome marriage if I want to..... ....there are laws in this country, and they apply to everyone.

And AGAIN I am going to repeat what I said earlier:

Do you want to marry a man? Do you want to stand up, declare before your friends, family and God, that you chose this man to spend your life with, to commit to him, commit with him, share with him, trust and love him?

Yes there are laws, but their existence does not make them right or just. Slavery was still morally wrong when it was legal, interracial marriage was still morally right when it was illegal.

 

[Psudopod]

But their choice isnt natural or functional. To justify it on has to change the meaning of marriage to partnership, sex to gender and sex to a desire rather than a function.
They do have the choice to select the partner they choose from anyone of the opposite sex, to select someone of the same sex is to select a friend.

You're married right? Do you have female friends as well? If so, in what way is the relationship between yourself and your wife different to that of your female friends?

 

[CoderHead]

But the species still has two sexes whatever state or country, male and female, why have two when you sya one will do in a relationship?

The fact that two sexes exist in nature doesn't change the fact that attraction to the same sex exists in nature. Why won't a single sex work in a relationship? You can see examples of where it does. The only thing it doesn't do is create more human beings...which isn't a requisite of a relationship.

All men and woman have the same right to get married and all men and women who call themselves homosexual are still men and woman.

So, you're suggesting that if homosexual men want to get married, they should find a homosexual woman? How is that logical?

By heterosexual you mean man and woman?

Was I unclear? Heterosexual = attracted to the opposite sex. I don't think it's changed.

Yes, and you are trying to define the same for one that cant. Otherwise why have the two sexes?

Again, you're saying that only people suitable for reproduction can be a part of a relationship. We know that even in heterosexual relationships this isn't always the case. It doesn't make their relationship any less functional, because reproduction doesn't have any bearing on the relationship between two people, or their commitment to each other.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

You're married right? Do you have female friends as well? If so, in what way is the relationship between yourself and your wife different to that of your female friends?

With my wife the friendship is much closer of course, my wife is my best friend and she is also my wife which means the natural partnership of the opposite sex for sexual reproduction.
You seem to have asked me the question I aksed you, in what way is a same sex friendship any different from an opposite sex friendship?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To CoderHead,

The fact that two sexes exist in nature doesn't change the fact that attraction to the same sex exists in nature.

I didn’t say it did and I would agree with you, what I am questioning is where we disagree, the fact that two sexes exist doesn’t answer the question why two sexes exist.

Why won't a single sex work in a relationship?

Because there are two sexes in the species.

You can see examples of where it does.

It doesn’t as its dysfunctional, it only worls in the eyes of those who don’t recognise the reality of there being two sexes.

The only thing it doesn't do is create more human beings...

Exactly, that’s the sexual dysfunction, otherwise it’s a friendship.

which isn't a requisite of a relationship.

Well yes it is if there are two sexes for reproduction, otherwise why have two?

So, you're suggesting that if homosexual men want to get married, they should find a homosexual woman? How is that logical?

No you are. I am saying that all men and woman have the same right to get married and all men and women who call themselves homosexual are still men and woman.

Yes, and you are trying to define the same for one that cant. Otherwise why have the two sexes?

Again, you're saying that only people suitable for reproduction can be a part of a relationship.

No I am asking you how you can consider the two combinations the same that aren’t the same nor can function as the same?

We know that even in heterosexual relationships this isn't always the case.

I am not talking about heterosexual relationships, which is sexual attraction as same sex attraction is dysfunctional I am asking you why have two sexes in the first place if you are proposing just one.

It doesn't make their relationship any less functional, because reproduction doesn't have any bearing on the relationship between two people,

Well yes it does make it less functional that’s the whole point it make it completely dysfunctional if there are two sexes needed for sexual reproduction.

 

[brightmorningstar]

You know in all threads and discussions we are both coming at the discussion from completely different starting points, we have to deal with the starting point.
Why have two sexes if one sex would do? The reason there are two sexes is to reproduce. The argument reproduction isnt the only or necessatry requirement is incorrect the existance of two sexes means it is.

Therefore the view marriage is man/woman is based on their being man and woman to reporduce, the view that it isnt necessary is just a view its not based on the reality of there being two sexes.

 

[CoderHead]

I didn’t say it did and I would agree with you, what I am questioning is where we disagree, the fact that two sexes exist doesn’t answer the question why two sexes exist.

Because there are two sexes in the species.

OK, let me try to make sense out of this. I'm obviously failing to get my point across:

Yes, there are two sexes of homo sapiens. Yes, the two of them have the potential to produce another. No, not every one will produce another during their lifetime. Therefore, it is not the singular purpose of homo sapiens to reproduce. If reproduction is not the singular purpose, then reproduction has no bearing on relationships between homo sapiens. If reproduction has no bearing on relationships, then two members of the opposite sex who either don't have the ability to reproduce (sterility) or have no desire to reproduce (not everyone wants children) would have a relationship no different than two members of the same sex. Since it's possible for two members of the opposite sex to have such a relationship and be content, then it's perfectly possible for two members of the same sex to have such a relationship and be content.

Do you get it? Or are you just going to say, "but then why are there two sexes?" Because, to be frank, that question has completely lost its meaning.

Homo sapiens are not the only creature in the animal kingdom who pair with the same sex.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To CoderHead,

OK, let me try to make sense out of this. I'm obviously failing to get my point across:

On the contrary you are getting your point across which is why I am asking you why have two sexes if one is sufficient?

Yes, there are two sexes of homo sapiens. Yes, the two of them have the potential to produce another. …. Therefore, it is not the singular purpose of homo sapiens to reproduce.

Well yes it is the singular purpose of thomo sapiens having two sexes! That’s the answer because one sex cant, two had to be created to be in union so as to reproduce. Bingo! Now you know why the union has to be opposite sex, they were created to be.

 

[CoderHead]

If the singular purpose of homo sapiens is to reproduce, than explain those who are unable to reproduce. Do they not exist?

 

[Psudopod]

To Psudopod,

You're married right? Do you have female friends as well? If so, in what way is the relationship between yourself and your wife different to that of your female friends?
​

With my wife the friendship is much closer of course, my wife is my best friend and she is also my wife which means the natural partnership of the opposite sex for sexual reproduction.
You seem to have asked me the question I aksed you, in what way is a same sex friendship any different from an opposite sex friendship?

It doesn't have to be any different. The point is, if you can have a wifely relationship with one woman that different to your relationship with other women, then it would be hypocritcal to decribe all same sex relationships as just "frienship".

 

[Psudopod]

Now you know why the union has to be opposite sex, they were created to be.

So, no marriage unless the couple has both the ability and the intent to marry then?

 

[CoderHead]

So, no marriage unless the couple has both the ability and the intent to marry then?

You mean the intent to reproduce?

I think that's what's being said, yes. Or no. Maybe it's only if it's a same-sex couple. Otherwise, just the fact that you're opposite genders makes it OK to marry.

I think.

 

[IzzyPop]

I'm going to repeat what I said a moment ago, which apparently got overlooked:

They have equal rights. There is no right that I have that they do not have. What you are attempting to do is change the meaning of the word "marriage".

And that is what is bogus about this whole conversation. In California, we already have same-sex unions and they enjoy rights that married couples have. Prop 8 did not change that. The problem is that they want to call their unions "marriage" - in other words, they want to change the definition of the word "marriage".

So once again, the truth of this issue is not being told.

Ahhh, the pretty semantic game of "They have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that I do!". Does it make you feel proud to be using the exact same argument that people against interracial marriages used? Does it strengthen your marriage to deny 2 people that have been living together for a couple decades survivor benefits for their partner? Does it make you feel holy to denegrate an entire group of people becasue you pesronally have an issue with one part of them?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

On the contrary you are getting your point across which is why I am asking you why have two sexes if one is sufficient?

Two are necessary to reproduce. But reproduction has no logical tie to marriage, which has been shown to you over and over. Please find fault with any of the below:

1) Unmarried heterosexual couples can reproduce.
2) Married heterosexual couples can decide not to reproduce, or be unable to reproduce.
2) Either married heterosexual couples or married homosexual couple can raise children produced by other people.
4) Homosexual couples can raise a child where one member of the couple is the biological relative of the child.

Unless you can find fault with any of those, I don't see how you can logically tie reproduction with marriage.