Quote:
|
Quote by: Starboy You say it is about marriage and then conflate it with children. Sounds like a family to me. What you are doing is constraining a family to a pair of people with biological children. That is fine if you want to do that, but currently that is not what a family is restricted to. And a marriage license is by no means a children license. Many people manage to have plenty of children without getting married and lots of people get married with the intention of having no children. Your argument is flat because you argue a concept of marriage that just doesn't exist. You can do it all you like but it is what is known as a "straw man". If you want to insist that your concept of marriage is how it ought to be then that is fine but I expect it will cause a bigger ruckus than gays getting married.
Starboy |
I'm arguing the only concept of marriage that has ever existed in the United States. It has been understood since before the Constitution even existed that
Man x Woman x Sexual Intercourse = Children = WRONG!
while
Man x Woman x Sexual Intercourse x Marriage = Children = RIGHT!
I believe that your increasingly hostile and personal attacks are the result of your own realization that your position is indefensible. To sum the matter up clearly:
You have said that marriage is the state's recognition of a family.
I responded that a family is more than just a husband and wife. And that, if marriage is turned into a recognition of a family, then any definition of marriage would have to be considered valid.
You have said that a homosexual couple and a childless heterosexual couple should be identical as far as marriage is concerned.
I responded that anytime a heterosexual couple has sex there is a chance of producing children and that a heterosexual couple is supposed to marry
before they engage in sexual intercourse (i.e. have babies.) Sex between a man and woman is not just a fun thing to do that has no biological, legal, or moral consequences.
You have said that adoption and natural child birth are the same thing.
I responded that adoption is a legal process in and of itself.
You have said that homosexual couples are being denied equal rights under the law.
I responded that any man and any woman may get married if they meet the basic requirements and that sexual preference does not enter into it (And, even if it did, "discrimination" based on sexual preference is not unconstitutional.)
I have stated clearly the purpose of marriage while you have not offered a viable alternative purpose that fits the history of marriage. If marriage is simply a recognition of a family, why is it that sex between some family members is acceptable and between others unacceptable? If marriage is simply about property, why is it that responsible women were expected to marry before sex even when they could not own property? If marriage is about family and property, with no requard to sexual intercourse, why is the majority of divorce law based on assumptions about the role of men and women in the biological process of creating children?