Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

If (1) a homosexual man and woman wish to share the responsibility of raising their child, how does this differ from a situtation in which (2) a heterosexual man and woman wish to share the responsibility of raising their child?

There is no difference. And guess what? The "homosexual" man and "homosexual" woman are allowed to legally marry one another.

He now refers to "a number of legal hoops that the biological parents must jump through in order to conceive and raise a child in this manner" but is unable to indicate what these would be and how these would be more of a burden to society than in the event that the man and woman in question were heterosexuals.

1) I am perfectly able to do so, if it's necessary. But I think it's rather obvious that a transfer of custody from one guardian to the next is a potential burden on the state, depending on particular state laws and who is held responsible for covering the costs of the transfer.

2) You are correct, of course... there is no difference between two gay, opposite sex partners having a child and two heterosexual partners. If I used the term homosexual when talking about the ability to conceive, I should not have. I should have used the term "same-sex." We all know that it's currently impossible for a same-sex couples to conceive children. If medical science changes that, then I'll change my views. Until then, I'm holding my ground.

[Dirty Name]

How is it in the interest of the state to disencourage a stable relationship between two adults of the same sex who are raising a child?

I have no doubt that you can sit around and conjure up rare exceptions to various rules all night long. But none of that will ever change the fundamental basics of this argument:

Generally speaking, and in the vast majority of cases, there is simply more at stake for everyone when it comes to a traditional, opposite sex union than there is at stake for a same-sex union. The two unions ARE NOT EQUAL in terms of the potential consequences for all parties involved, including the individuals comprising the union, their dependents, and society at large.

Explain to me how those two situations are equal and then you'll win this argument. But if you can't, then you lose. It's really that simple.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Dirty Name I have no doubt that you can sit around and conjure up rare exceptions to various rules all night long. But none of that will ever change the fundamental basics of this argument: Generally speaking, and in the vast majority of cases, there is simply more at stake for everyone when it comes to a traditional, opposite sex union than there is at stake for a same-sex union. The two unions ARE NOT EQUAL in terms of the potential consequences for all parties involved, including the individuals comprising the union, their dependents, and society at large. Explain to me how those two situations are equal and then you'll win this argument. But if you can't, then you lose. It's really that simple.

Although I'm not sold on the whole homosexual revolution thing I just wonder why they want marriage so badly. Their argument is weak as well. They want marriage while many young child-bearing years heterosexuals don't. Makes no sense.

In our local paper it's getting where more and more young people are having babies and not married, or they wait till they have the kid to marry. What's the deal? I believe it's Hollywood. Young people follow Hollywood trends more than ever, but it's probably always been that way. Hollywood is very influencial. More influencial than religion or parents.

In MHO marriage will eventually become obsolete cause it won't mean anything, so why do it. They'll either have licenses where you stay married a while, and then if you don't renew, you can move on. I doubt the lawyers would go for that one. This would hurt business. I also believe and have stated this before, that it's the lawyers that are pushing for gay marriage. They want the revenue from the divorces, and the tax fraud cases, and all of it that goes with marriage.

I think in the whole scheme of things, gay marriage,straight marriage, the differences would be negligible. Life is short, and if there can be no way to prove that gays are more deviant than starights then why bother with all the debating.

I don't think it will make society any different than what it already is. Straights have done themselves in, so you can't prove the good/bad thing anymore. Just isn't there.

[Matts]

Quote by: Dirty Name There is no difference. And guess what? The "homosexual" man and "homosexual" woman are allowed to legally marry one another.

There is no reason whatever why they should, though, as far as their responsibility as parents is concerned. The idea that the man and woman in this situation should even consider getting married illustrates the absurdity of the whole family values frame of mind. That these people have a child together is an irreversible biological fact, whereas marriage would be a social contract. The two are clearly dissociable and do not presuppose one another.

The man and woman have a child. They did not need to be sexually involved with one other to have him/her and they do not need to be in order to raise him/her together. Of course they could always take advantage of the stupidity of the structural heteronormativity of the system and get married only to collect the benefits, while in fact living in their respective homosexual relationships. What is more, there would be nothing objectively unethical in this course of action because, technically, they would only be doing what the system expects of them as a man and a woman with a child.

Quote by: Dirty Name ... I think it's rather obvious that a transfer of custody from one guardian to the next is a potential burden on the state, depending on particular state laws and who is held responsible for covering the costs of the transfer.

First, you seem to think that societies are run like business: if there is something that may cause the slightest reduction in cost-efficiency, it needs to be rooted out viciously, or else. There is a reason why the corporate management ethic is not systematically applied to social policy making (see: the social history of fascism).

Second, you do not provide any evidence that the transfer of custody would cause expenses great enough to justify the attribute "burden." You also neglect to explain why you think the procedure should be less of a "burden to society" when it involves a heterosexual couple who cannot have a child together. I should also like to urge you to consider the expenses caused by the rampant reproduction of married heterosexual couples, many of whom also have children from previous marriages.

Third, who was saying anything about transfer of custody in the first place? This is where our differences in thinking about children and childrearing are most striking. You are constantly thinking in terms of "unions" taking care of children, whereas I am thinking about the actual individuals involved in childrearing, regardless of the interpersonal minutiae of their relationship. What is to prevent a father and mother from seeing their offspring to adulthood together with the support of their respective same-sex partners?

Quote by: Dirty Name We all know that it's currently impossible for a same-sex couples to conceive children. If medical science changes that, then I'll change my views. Until then, I'm holding my ground.

Heterosexuals lecture homosexuals about the facts of reproductive biology for the rhetorical effect of a moral high ground. But if anyone should be lecturing anyone about the facts of reproductive biology, it is surely the homosexuals and bisexuals – to heterosexuals. The irony is that every intelligent homosexual and bisexual person will not only know the hard facts of reproductive biology but will be unable to think of a single reason why they should ever wish the facts to be any different. For evangelical heterosexuals, on the other hand, the concept of reproduction is but a desperate mishmash of objectively dissociable psychological, interpersonal and biological events, all curled into one seriously confused narrative about the nature of sex.

There is nothing intrinsically elevated or romantic, indeed nothing quite "heterosexual," about the reproductive event. It has to do with squirting stuff up a woman's vagina.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Matts There is nothing intrinsically elevated or romantic, indeed nothing quite "heterosexual," about the reproductive event. It has to do with squirting stuff up a woman's vagina.

Sex is actually quite awkward and messy. They always say it's a thing of beauty, but says who? I think it is what it is, and it's quite primitive no matter how you state it.

Excepting for the sexual element gays/straights are pretty much the same. They eat, sleep, and all that. I'm starting to think this is really a silly argument cause there's not all that much negative you can really reach for to negate the homosexual lifestyle.

I'd like to say heteros are more moral, but they aren't really. There's more hetero porn, more deviancy, it's all there.

You just can't pull anymore negatives from one over the other, and historically gays have been accepted, it's really more recently that they haven't been, and I think this came out of a need to find another "sin". They aren't in the Ten Commandments, and they would have been if it had been really important to mention.

It has been mentioned elsewhere that homosexual marriage may actually be good for marriage in general. I don't see how, but who knows. I think marriage is going the way of the dinosaur, and maybe it should. Women no longer "need" men for their existence, and so with this liberation there's also freedom to be what ever the hell you want to be.

[Dirty Name]

Heterosexuals lecture homosexuals about the facts of reproductive biology for the rhetorical effect of a moral high ground.

No lecture intended. And certainly not to establish any moral high ground based on that. No, my point is simply that all couples are not created equal. Therefore, we should not treat them as such.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name No lecture intended. And certainly not to establish any moral high ground based on that. No, my point is simply that all couples are not created equal. Therefore, we should not treat them as such.

A couple is, by definition, two individuals - individuals who should be treated equally under the law, regardless of race, religion or sexual preference. Pretty basic.

[Dirty Name]

A couple is, by definition, two individuals - individuals who should be treated equally under the law, regardless of race, religion or sexual preference. Pretty basic

The individuals ARE treated equally. They all have the right to marry a consentual adult of the opposite gender who is not a blood relative.

There is ZERO difference in how individuals are treated. You're just pissy because the outcome isn't the same for everyone. Nor are equal outcomes guaranteed under the law. Only equal treatment.

[Beer]

This argument makes no sense to me and i believe it never shall. If you are heterosexual, I couldn't imagine your personal motivation except that you feel some pride in your "21st Century enlightenment" and are stringently acting upon your newfound glory, as if you have it all figured out. Are you going to live forever? Is your legacy going to be history in the making? Or is it going to be the laughing stock, the butt of jokes for our posterity who would recognize their existence to be dependant on their parents being heterosexual. This is silly. Why be so serious about an unnatural union? For homosexuals, do what you do. Love. Have sex. Behind closed doors. Like everyone else does. Do you base your whole existence around sex? How shallow and simple! What substantial gains are you hoping to realize except the novelty that was given to people that had normal sex lives? Throughout history there have been homosexuals but they never clamored for normalcy. Why would they when they knew the case to be different? Isn't being different the whole cause? You cannot reproduce, so the species would end with you? Why do you think inm such a fashion? I am truly perplexed!

[Beer]

Everyone speaks as if they are pessimstic to marriage. Then why speak for marriage at all. Why would anyone want it? Including yourselves. Don't get married then. Marriage is a sanctity. If not through God, then through the heart of your partner. If you want marriage for tax breaks and the like then you are robbing tax payers of the money that they could use for the raising of their children, and who are you to willingly take from the welfare of a child because of your selfish sexual behavior? Care of a child should be paramount and this seems to me like a blatent disregard of that. Live now for yourselves I guess! The world will be dead anyway. Might as well kill it sooner. Smooth killing!

[belverron]

At least someone's finally saying something different.

Quote by: Beer For homosexuals, do what you do. Love. Have sex. Behind closed doors. Like everyone else does. Do you base your whole existence around sex? How shallow and simple!

There's a lot going on in my life that has nothing to do with sex; well, there'll be more once classes start up again. I have real passions and I do a lot of reading. I also occasionally drink and party. And none of this in any way whatever devalues sex or relationships. They're simple; sometimes they're shallow; and they're incredibly important to us all.

[belverron]

Quote by: Beer If you want marriage for tax breaks and the like then you are robbing tax payers of the money that they could use for the raising of their children, and who are you to willingly take from the welfare of a child because of your selfish sexual behavior?

"And the like." I think it's safe to say that for almost all gays fighting this battle, it's not about the tax breaks; they're nice, but in the end not all that significant. More important is the recognition by government and society of another as the paramount figure in your life, and no, contracts simply can't impart the same force that marriage or something akin to it can. This battle isn't about benefits; it's about recognition. I'm getting tired of hearing it framed in terms of taxes.

[Dirty Name]

More important is the recognition by government and society of another as the paramount figure in your life

Why is this so important, if the other issues (like tax breaks) are not? If there were no other benefits, there would be no NEED for the recognition in the first place, leaving us with nothing more than a ceremony and a state of mind.

And gays can already have the ceremony and the state of mind.

[underbear1]

If it's unimportant, then NO COUPLE gay or straight gets a ceremony or special privlidges. No one needs to be officially recognised as a couple, children are born with single parents and no one bats an eye.

[Beer]

Why is recognition so important except for a validation? Do I need to validate my heterosexualism? No. It is taken for granted. Especially by myself. It would seem to me that if I had some personal score to settle for my sexuality, I might have personal issues to settle with myself. If you are homosexual, "gay", why try to shove the fact down someone elses throat? No pun intended. So what? You are asking for politics to enter our bedrooms and label us according to what they find. How could you be motivated to beg for recognition that your sexual behavior is abnormal? You have it. Are you not aware that the majority of Americans will not accept your deviance as legitimate because it is a sexual issue, and therefore private. I don't talk to my friends, my neighbors or family about my sexuality because it is frankly inappropriate and unwarranted. Insensible! To base my personal behavior on what I choose to do with my genitalia is to show the world my lack of personal control and ability to differentiate between relevance and free will.

[underbear1]

Do I need to validate my heterosexualism? No. It is taken for granted.

"Heterosexuality isn't normal, it's just common."

In this time, and in this society heterosexuality is celebrated and given special privlidges, in other times, and other societies pansexual behavior was celebrated, and same sex unions were respected, some involved doweries, shared property rights, some even had male couples as their army (Sacred Band of Thebes.)The times are changing slowly, and in 20 years dispite the rethugs best efforts gays and lesbians will have FULLY equal rights, because the younger voters don't have their grandparents bigotry against us.

Trying to claim heterosexuality isn't jammed down throats...and of course no pun intended EITHER, is an absolute lie, heterosex is used to sell sports cars, beer, and even McDonald's hamburgers.

[Dirty Name]

Heterosexuality is NOT given special priveleges. Again, when we discuss the marriage issue, one's sexuality is NOT part of the equation for who gets "special" priveleges.

What you call "special" treatment is given to those people who choose to comply with the requirements for marriage, regardless of their sexual preferences, and it's equally and freely available for anyone - yes, even you, Tinybear, should you choose to avail yourself of it.

You don't like the rules, so you want them changed. I say too bad.

[Dirty Name]

If it's unimportant, then NO COUPLE gay or straight gets a ceremony or special privlidges. No one needs to be officially recognised as a couple, children are born with single parents and no one bats an eye.

Just so we're clear, I believe we are now talking about the importance of "validation." I don't find it important in the least. And "validation" is not the driving force of the logic behind granting benefits to married couples.

[underbear1]

Argue this to death, the numbers are moving rapidly in favor of full equality for LGBT members, and what's hillarious to me, it's your own straight children who will be the agent to this change.....thanks voters of tommorow, I won't see the result, but it's coming for my younger brothers and sisters.

[Dirty Name]

I can't speak for my children, but I guarantee you they won't be raised to believe legalizing same-sex marriage is a good idea.