[Starboy]

Quote by: ansil Starboy Quote by: Starboy "Why create different sizes of something when you already have a size that fits all? What purpose does it serve other than to discriminate against people unnecessarily? As I pointed out earlier, the same marriage license works for hetero couples that are infertile and either cannot have sex or have no intention of having sex. Why wouldn't the same exact license work for couples of the same sex that would obviously not be able to have children and may or may not have sex? What is the need for different marriage licenses when the current one already works in all the possible cases?" And so thats my point also. One size doesn't fit all. I agree that a hetrosexual couple marriage that is infertile is close to a homosexual marriage, except there is a difference bwtween those two marriages and a homosexual marriage that can have kids.

If they don't have kids or the kids are of legal age there is no difference. You forget than many older people who are well past the age of reproduction get married all the time and the vast majority of them have no intention of having children.

Power of Custody of the kids is a huge civil matter that is addressed in marriage benifits. The hetrosexuals and the homosexuals do not need to have anything in their marriage liscence that deals with kids (of course adoption etc, but we are talking about "tradition" baby making. whereas the kids have both genitc makeup). So there right there is an example where the two non kid making marriages are different than the supposedly making babies marriage (Although I agree with you in these times not every hetrosexual marriage has kids, but they have the ability to so in essence need that extra benifit). Right there is an example in a legal standpoint where the marriages ARE different.

[ansil, it would improve the readability of your posts if you would use the quote function to place the comments of other posts into a quote box. Just a suggestion. I can deal with your posts as they are but others may not find it as easy.]

But all marriages are different. That is my point. That the marriage certificate as it stands already handles a vast array of circumstances regarding marriage. That there is no reason to create a different kind of marriage certificate.

And of course you are aware that there is nothing stopping a lesbian couple from going down to the sperm bank and making a withdrawal and having a child. Why wouldn't the state not allow both mothers to raise the child? In fact the state already does allow for it. Why would it not be better for the child if both mothers were bound legally under the law for the welfare of the child than just the one mother? Why if there were a custody dispute not allow the judge the luxury of using both parents to provide the best possible home for the child after the divorce?

You are still trying to make a marriage license into a sex license. It is a terrible idea. It is one of the reasons why things are as screwed up as they are. That just because two people can make babies doesn't in any way mean that they will provide a good home for that baby and in most cases of such baby making they probably will make a horrible family. And yet you all want to frame family in that context. It is just plain idiocy.

Religiously they are all the same marriages, correct. I agree with you there, but I still cant see how one size fits all works for all the different type of marriages. Another example if you use your "one size fits all" If two best friends who are not in a sexual relationship, man and woman, the woman gets pregnant by another man and has a kid. Does the man in the "marriage" gets child custody now?

In some cases yes. And it is happening more often all the time. It appears to me that you have never been married. That you have never had children. That you are pretty clueless about the whole thing. Well someday you may be married. And if you are I hope that you find a decent responsible intelligent girl to settle down with. But if you don't and your marriage ends up in divorce it could very well be the case that you would make the far better parent. And it will distress you to no end that in some states with some courts there will not be a dang thing you can do about it. And why is that? Because so many morons confuse a marriage license with a sex license. They think that a pair of boobs, a cunt and a dick are magically a formula for a healthy family than any other combination. They are actually a bunch of perverts in my opinion because they are so obsessed with the sex that has not occurred to them that it is about the people themselves. And this crap about confusing a sex license with a marriage license completely ignores what should be important in a family.

Thats another example where that "type" of marriage differes from the hetrosexual "traditional" marriage. So I say once again, my argument is as follows, because different types of marriages are getting a set of different types of "BENIFITS" I may add, does that make it a discrimination. No of course not. There are thousands of example where different types of people get different types of benifits. If the person next to me gets a loan from the government to start his business because he went to grad school and I didnt. Does that make it a human right violation? No. Those were choices we made differently. Now if he got a bigger loan cause he is white and we both went to same exact Law School, then thats a human rights violation. They only looked at physical attributes. But thats not happening in this case, Homosexuals are "allowed" to get married, they are "allowed" to get benifits, they just cant get it all assumed under one marriage license. And if you want to argue that its discrimination that they are "held to a higher responsibilty" I dont see why you cant see them giving them a.k.a. Civil Unions, which have the benifits they need in persuit of happiness, for they do fall under a "different" category of marriage and should get a different set of benifits. That doesnt make them a second class citizen. It is not the same type of marriage,

Okay, here is another fact for you. Gay couples in many states may already adopt children. So your argument regarding child rearing is just flat out specious. In fact there are so many children that need a home desperately it would seem to me that any nation that would not consider every possible resource to provide a loving home is just full of religious assholes. For some reason you make the presumption that a hetero couple will automatically do a better job when these children are coming from hetero couples that obviously did not do a better job. The issue of a loving home has everything to do with the people involved and nothing to do with their gender.

From what I can see the gays are many times more savvy at being married than the heteros because the gays already understand that marriage is not a sex license but a family license and thus homo families already have a leg up on hetero couples because of that. The fact is that in most states gays can already do all the things that you seem to think requires a separate marriage license for. So the gays are not looking for the marriage license to allow them to do those things. What they are looking for is the same recognition under the law of their families that hetero families have. Because they are doing everything that hetero families are doing but without the government recognition and that is flat out discrimination. And anyone that defends separate treatment is no different than someone that defends separate treatment for blacks vs. whites.

Starboy