Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: JaneDoe321 I don't think we're aiming for the most "efficient" society. That's an entirely different creature.

I think we are, or should be trying to be as efficient as possible. A society operating in a maximally efficient manner would have biological parents continuing to be responsible for the care of their children.

Quote by: JaneDoe321 ...our country may appear to prefer that *procreation* occur between couples who are legally bound (and in theory will then share the responsibilities of raising those children) but that's about where it ends.

Well said. I don't disagree with this paragraph. It does "appear" (as you put it) that our society prefers for procreation to occur between couples that are legally bound. It just makes good sense and the system has worked pretty well so far.

Since homosexuality has everything to do with sexual attraction and diddly squat to do with fertility, it is also common for homosexual couples to also deal with the challenges of parenting (and "step-parenting" from a relationship if not legal perspective)

Hmmm...I don't follow your leap of "logic" here. In the first part of your sentence, you admit homosexuality has "diddly squat" to do with fertility, and everything to do with sexual attraction. Yet you conclude later in the sentence that it's "common" for homosexuals to have children.

Sorry, I don't think the two fragments form a consistent statement.

However, I will stipulate, for the sake of discussion, that many gay couples have had heterosexual experiences where procreation occurred. That said, why do you think it would be a good idea to remove the incentive for a homosexual parent to raise his/her child with that child's other biological parent?

That's really what we are talking about here. Why neutralize the inherent incentive for biological parents to stick together? You have already stated that it "appears" our society prefers them to stay together in a legally bound relationship - so why neutralize it by offering benefits that would incentivize the gay person to leave his child's other parent and live in a same sex relationship?

We have really gotten to the core of my argument here. I'm thrilled.

Quote by: JaneDoe321 I've yet to see any compelling data that heterosexual couples are better parents.

Children raised by their biological parents are more likely to also raise their own children in a similar, biologically stable environment. Stability breeds stability. Unstable relationships breed unstable relationships.

Here's some research for you:

Quote by: Marriage Promotion in Low-Income Families, Fact Sheet, National Council on Family Relations, April 2003 “A large body of social science research indicates that healthy, married-parent families are an optimal environment for promoting the well-being of children. Children raised by both biological parents are less likely than children raised in single- or step-parent families to be poor, to drop out of school, to have difficulty finding a job, to become teen parents or to experience emotional or behavioral problems. Children living with single mothers are five times as likely to be poor as those in two-parent families.”

Even if you could debunk this with a bought-and-paid-for study produced by the homosexual lobby, it doesn't change the fact that those who have sexual relations and produce children ought to be responsible for those children, and there is no more effective method for living up to that responsibility than to live with and care for the child you produce.

----

Uh-oh. I smell some double-talk coming...

Quote by: JaneDoe321 So, we don't have a more stable home environment *just* because the two adults involved are of mixed gender. I seriously doubt we have a "more efficient" (even though that is not and really should not be the goal) environment, either.

Compare that to this:

Quote by: JaneDoe321 ...it takes a crapload more effort, time and intent for homosexual couples to have/raise children...

It appears you have been caught talking out of both sides of your mouth here. On one hand you argue that "mixed gender" parents are not any more "efficient" than same-sex parents.

In the second sentence, you argue that gay couples are required to expend a "crapload more effort" to raise children.

Please, pick one argument and stick with it.

[Tycoon]

I think we are, or should be trying to be as efficient as possible. A society operating in a maximally efficient manner would have biological parents continuing to be responsible for the care of their children.

Care to explain why non-biological parents can't be responsible for the care of their children? Besides, you ignore the fact that there are methods for homosexuals to have children yet again.

Well said. I don't disagree with this paragraph. It does "appear" (as you put it) that our society prefers for procreation to occur between couples that are legally bound. It just makes good sense and the system has worked pretty well so far.

System? This is not a system. Procreation is necessary for survival, and it is something that all animals do. I see no reason why it has to cooperate with anything in society. The way we procreate is completely irrelevant. Because I am fertile, and because there are surrogate mothers out there, I have the potential to procreate regardless of my partner.

You have already stated that it "appears" our society prefers them to stay together in a legally bound relationship - so why neutralize it by offering benefits that would incentivize the gay person to leave his child's other parent and live in a same sex relationship?

Only in some cases do homosexuals have children with heterosexuals. Besides, who are you to choose how anybody lives their life? What relationship they want to live they will live, and to take away a right that others have in order to make them live the lifestyle you want them to live I consider to be blackmail.

Children raised by their biological parents are more likely to also raise their own children in a similar, biologically stable environment. Stability breeds stability. Unstable relationships breed unstable relationships.

There is nothing biologically unstable about homosexuals. There is nothing unstable about our relationships.

Even if you could debunk this with a bought-and-paid-for study produced by the homosexual lobby, it doesn't change the fact that those who have sexual relations and produce children ought to be responsible for those children, and there is no more effective method for living up to that responsibility than to live with and care for the child you produce.

Please explain to me why I would pay the large sum of money to have a child via surrogate mother, a child that would biologically be mine, a child that I would want, and then not take responsibility or not live with them.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: Dirty Name You didn't answer the question. You have constructed this hypothetical circumstance where an infertile couple gets married, and you have asked me if they should receive benefits even though they have zero potential for procreation. I reject your hypothetical question on the grounds that you know far more about a couple's chances to procreate than the government ever would know. So if you want to continue this hypothetical discussion, you're going to have to explain to me how the government could possibly know a couple is permanently infertile. Once you explain that, I'll be happy to continue exploring your hypothetical and rare situation to see how I believe the government would handle such a situation. That's really the ultimate goal anyway. To get you people to see that no matter how bad you want things to be a certain way, you still face the very real problem of implementing your dream world in a manner that is practical, fair, consistent, and good for our society.

Ok, how about this. My dad got a vasectomy. Now he plans to marry another women. Should he receive the same benefits even though he won't able to have children. Now you'll argue about how he can have the operation reversed.

1. The reversal is very difficult and doesn't always work.
2. What about couples who are infertile from natural factors.

You'll say how will the government know this? We'll, they can't so the couples can get married despite being infertile. There for, couples who DO NOT HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR PROCREATION CAN GET MARRIED. This means that by allowing these couples to marry, all couples should receive the benefits of fertile heterosexual couples. Otherwise it's discrimination. Oh, and by the way, infertile couples get married all the time, it's not just a hypothetical situation. It's just that people want to say that other people can't do the same things because they're different. I am really getting tired of your "logic". You make these prejudice statements and reject anything that discredits your reason for it as nothing that really does discredit it because it goes against your views. Face it, one group of people has NO right WHAT SO EVER to be able to tell another group what they can or can't do based on something they can't change.

Quote by: Marriage Promotion in Low-Income Families, Fact Sheet, National Council on Family Relations, April 2003 “A large body of social science research indicates that healthy, married-parent families are an optimal environment for promoting the well-being of children. Children raised by both biological parents are less likely than children raised in single- or step-parent families to be poor, to drop out of school, to have difficulty finding a job, to become teen parents or to experience emotional or behavioral problems. Children living with single mothers are five times as likely to be poor as those in two-parent families.”

Provide the link for this please.

[Tycoon]

You have constructed this hypothetical circumstance where an infertile couple gets married, and you have asked me if they should receive benefits even though they have zero potential for procreation.

You're simply spewing bigotry. I have said many times... I am fertile and there are willing surrogate mothers. Therefore, I have the potential for procreation.

I would not pay the large sum of money to have a surrogate mother produce my own biological child and then not care for it responsibly. There is no reason why I would be any less caring a parent.

You cannot continue to say the same load of bullshit over and over again. Nothing you have said is true, and you continue to enforce it with more and more ignorant statements.

[Tycoon]

Tell me why our society should promote this when the most efficient society would promote biological parenthood more than other forms because the biological parents should be held responsible for the offspring they create.

Every parent, biological or not, is responsible for their child. Do you assume that people who adopt their children take no responsiblity for them whatsoever? Your argument isn't even worth wasting time on.

Keep in mind I've been here before, and answered all of these same challenges, corrected all of these same incorrect assumptions, and withstood the frustrated cries of "bigot!" when the others finally realized I have laid out an argument they have a difficult time countering.

You've been here a long time and nobody has agreed with you. In the last few posts several of your key points have been proved wrong with simple examples! You don't prove anything. You think you do by layering your argument with your own bigotry and ignorance.

[ShadowFox]

I think we are, or should be trying to be as efficient as possible. A society operating in a maximally efficient manner would have biological parents continuing to be responsible for the care of their children.

Who do you think would be better suited to parent a child? Drunk, abusive biological parents? Or kind and loving step parents? Ya, sure not all step parents are great, but there are really nice ones. I have to friends who have all A's, obey the law, are very friendly, and do their best even though they have step parents. I also know kids who live with their biological parents who are unruly and disrespectful. So it works both ways buddy.

[Tycoon]

The potential matters because heterosexual couples, recognizing that their sexuality carries with it certain consequences (that happen to be unique to heterosexuals), are forced to make decisions and sacrifices that gay couples never face.

You don't think that homosexuals can recognize the responsibilities of their actions? I'm sorry, but this entire statement right here reeks of bigotry. Homosexuals cannot produce children together, true, but when they do have children by other means there is no reason to suspect they don't understand the responsibility of it. How do they make any less sacrifice in raising a child?

Your statements reek of bigotry, unsupported by any facts or logic, instead filled with your ignorant opinions.

[Tycoon]

Before I answer - please tell me who is going to prevent said marriage, and on what evidence. Be sure to explain to me, under your hypothetical society [where HIPAA regulations apparently don't exist], how this "marriage authority" acquired the evidence you are referring to.

Exactly. How did they? They didn't. Because there should be no marriage authority. I would say it's discrimination to allow an infertile couple who have no "potential for procreation" to marry while not allowing homosexual couples to marry. Especially when homosexual couples do in fact have the potential for procreation.

[Tycoon]

I am not making the claim that people marry to procreate. I am making the point that procreation results naturally from the routine sexual activity of heterosexual couples, and as a result, our society prefers that procreation occurs with a stable (read: marital) environment.

I'm sorry, I must have been under the delusion that people are rather careful to decide whether or not they want a child. I read about this thing a couple times... I think it's called uuum... b... biirt... birth control!

[ShadowFox]

Because, as I have already said a thousand times, my argument is about the POTENTIAL for procreation - not SUCCESSFUL procreation. The potential matters because heterosexual couples, recognizing that their sexuality carries with it certain consequences (that happen to be unique to heterosexuals), are forced to make decisions and sacrifices that gay couples never face. For example, many straight women aspire to be stay-at-home mothers, even from a very young age, and often don't pursue career goals as effectively as others do, all because they KNOW they have the potential to procreate, and our society happens to think it's a DAMNED GOOD IDEA for moms to be at home with their kids. But in many of those cases, the woman never conceives a child. In other situations, she may get pregnant but fail to deliver the child. Regardless, the sacrifices are still made to benefit the child, the family, and our society, even in cases where procreation doesn't actually occur. In short, the very potential for procreation makes a huge difference in people's lives, whether or not they actually do procreate.

Homosexuals still have the potential to procreate. They just don't. So, if your argument is SOLELY on the potential to procreate (as in the ability to have offspring) then you must recognize that homosexuals aren't all infertile.

And also, there are homosexual parents who adopt. Or, another possibility (for female homosexual couples) is sperm donations. Then they even face pregnancy. So homosexuals also have the potential to face the problems of parenthood, not just heterosexuals.

[Tycoon]

Trouble is, you're talking about indviduals, who under the US Constitution have civil rights. Unfortunately for you, I'm talking about couples, who don't have any rights under the United States Constitution.

Marriage is a choice made by two individuals. We're talking before they become a legally recognized couple. We're talking about how the individuals have the right to become that legally recognized couple.

[Tycoon]

I reject your hypothetical question on the grounds that you know far more about a couple's chances to procreate than the government ever would know. So if you want to continue this hypothetical discussion, you're going to have to explain to me how the government could possibly know a couple is permanently infertile. Once you explain that, I'll be happy to continue exploring your hypothetical and rare situation to see how I believe the government would handle such a situation. That's really the ultimate goal anyway. To get you people to see that no matter how bad you want things to be a certain way, you still face the very real problem of implementing your dream world in a manner that is practical, fair, consistent, and good for our society.

Excuse me, but the government doesn't need to know any couple's chances for procreation. Procreation is not a requirement. Many couples do not have children, even if they have your "potential for procreation". They use something called birth control, you might look into it a little.

Excuse me? You're the one who wants so badly for gays not to have marriage, which would be in fact the practical, fair and consistent thing to do. It's practical because they are two people in love. Fair because why shouldn't they be allowed what everyone else has. Consistent because those other couples have it.

[Tycoon]

In order to demonstrate illegal discrimination, it is necessary to prove that the law unfairly discriminates against one particular group. Please tell me which particular sex (or gender) is being discriminated against when the law says two people of the same gender may not marry. It seems to me that folks of both genders are treated equally under such a law.

I'm sorry, but this is just plain stupid. We're not even talking gender here, we're talking people of a particular sexual orientation. And why is it unfair? Because the majority who in fact are no better than the minority are receiving rights that the minority are not. One group is being treated as less than equal to the other.

[ShadowFox]

In order to demonstrate illegal discrimination, it is necessary to prove that the law unfairly discriminates against one particular group. Please tell me which particular sex (or gender) is being discriminated against when the law says two people of the same gender may not marry. It seems to me that folks of both genders are treated equally under such a law.

You want to know? FINE. Marriage is a contract. Denying to people of the same sex this contract is discrimination against one of those people based on sex. It is based on sex because you are telling one party that" because you are male/female, you cannot take part in this legal contract with the other party". Since the constitution protects against discrimination based on race, religion , and sex, gay marriage is protected by the constitution. It could be compared to two african americans not being allowed to marry. The only difference isn't sex, it's race.

[Tycoon]

For example, many straight women aspire to be stay-at-home mothers, even from a very young age, and often don't pursue career goals as effectively as others do, all because they KNOW they have the potential to procreate, and our society happens to think it's a DAMNED GOOD IDEA for moms to be at home with their kids.

No, stay at home mothers stay at home because they intend to have children. They stop using that thing... what's it called again... Aah, right, birth control.

My point is, it's black and white. Either the couple decides to have children and stops using birth control or they decide not to have children and keep using birth control. True, there is a grey inbetween in the case of accidental pregnancies. That grey is getting smaller and smaller and I am sure in the case of the couple having the accidental pregnancy it's not something that they're happy about because of their productivity in society. I'm sure it's more of a burden.

And by the way, this is not a communist nation. There is no requirement to be productive to society. If I inherited thirty million dollars I could sit on my ass all day if I wanted to and it would be my right to do so. The same applies to this situation.

It seems to me that you might get along with Mussolini, who said that the true job of every woman is motherhood. Guess what? We learned a little since Mussolini, and giving birth is a choice, not a requirement for any couple.

[Tycoon]

Oookay Dirty, I think we got it all in there. Have fun answering with ignorance and bigotry!

[Tycoon]

I think we are, or should be trying to be as efficient as possible. A society operating in a maximally efficient manner would have biological parents continuing to be responsible for the care of their children.

One of my previous arguments works on this statement too.

And by the way, this is not a communist nation. There is no requirement to be productive to society. If I inherited thirty million dollars I could sit on my ass all day if I wanted to and it would be my right to do so. The same applies to this situation.

[ShadowFox]

So, quit whining and just go live your life.

This will be my last post of the day will be this.

If gay marriage is in NO way affecting you personally, since it is not infringing on your rights, you should do what you say in the above quote. Go live your life and allow others to do the same.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Because, as I have already said a thousand times, my argument is about the POTENTIAL for procreation - not SUCCESSFUL procreation. The potential matters because heterosexual couples, recognizing that their sexuality carries with it certain consequences (that happen to be unique to heterosexuals), are forced to make decisions and sacrifices that gay couples never face. For example, many straight women aspire to be stay-at-home mothers, even from a very young age, and often don't pursue career goals as effectively as others do, all because they KNOW they have the potential to procreate, and our society happens to think it's a DAMNED GOOD IDEA for moms to be at home with their kids. But in many of those cases, the woman never conceives a child. In other situations, she may get pregnant but fail to deliver the child. Regardless, the sacrifices are still made to benefit the child, the family, and our society, even in cases where procreation doesn't actually occur. In short, the very potential for procreation makes a huge difference in people's lives, whether or not they actually do procreate.

Then, as I have already said a thousand times, society will provide those benefits when the couple produce one or more offspring, and not a second before.

Society will be more than happy to provide benefits for sacrifices made when the couple file their tax return, indicating offspring as dependents. The fact that a couple would normally file this information ANYWAY invalidates your assertion that government will somehow have to invade a couple's privacy to know about fertility to determine benefits.

[JaneDoe321]

Quote by: Dirty Name For example, many straight women aspire to be stay-at-home mothers, even from a very young age, and often don't pursue career goals as effectively as others do, all because they KNOW they have the potential to procreate, and our society happens to think it's a DAMNED GOOD IDEA for moms to be at home with their kids.

What decade are you typing this from?

I think most "straight women" (unless your polling sample comes from extremist fundamental Christian households) wait to have children until they are well into their 30's and have no intention of being stay at home mothers *ever*, and in fact many choose not to procreate at all and do NOT plan for it by "aspiring to stay at home".

And our society give's a rat's patoot about "moms being home with their kids". That's a political soundbite with absolutely no financial or other support built in. However, if "society" wants to cut me a check so I can pay the bills, I'll happily resign from my company and tie on the apron and have brownies ready for Lil Jimmy and his pals when they come home from stickball practice.... I better get a bartending book so I can have a martini ready for the BreadWinner when He arrives home from His job.. and where *are* my pearls....