# My mom, divorced 3 times, thinks gay marriage will "ruin" marriage. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 30, 2011, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381 "2011-06-30T13:59:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Implicit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Implicit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Implicit)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/121 "2011-07-02T15:47:28Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Why is civil union not enough? If it gives the same rights to inheritance, etc. Civil union is what we have around here and nobody seems to be clamoring for anything else. I’m not sure what rights are conferred by civil unions in Denmark, but in the US the problem is that the rights are \*\*not \*\*the same as marriage. Civil unions aren’t recognized federally so tax benefits, social security, and other federal benefits aren’t available to partners. The unions generally aren’t recognized in other states, so if you move you lose whatever rights you did have, while marriage is recognized not only everywhere within the country but internationally as well. The unions aren’t treated as a marriage where adoption is concerned, etc., etc. Here is a summary by [factcheck.org](http://factcheck.org) which describes some of the issues: [http://www.factcheck.org/what\_is\_a\_civil\_union.html](http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/122 "2011-07-02T15:51:21Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Why is civil union not enough? If it gives the same rights to inheritance, etc. Civil union is what we have around here and nobody seems to be clamoring for anything else. Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall explained, in an advisory ruling about a “civil unions” bill: > [@](#): > > The bill’s absolute prohibition of the word `marriage' by `spouses’ who are the same sex is more than semantic. > > The dissimilitude between the terms `civil marriage' and `civil union’ is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status. > > For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/123 "2011-07-02T15:53:32Z")
> [@Implicit](#): > > I’m not sure what rights are conferred by civil unions in Denmark, but in the US the problem is that the rights are \*\*not \*\*the same as marriage. Civil unions aren’t recognized federally so tax benefits, social security, and other federal benefits aren’t available to partners. The unions generally aren’t recognized in other states, so if you move you lose whatever rights you did have, while marriage is recognized not only everywhere within the country but internationally as well. The unions aren’t treated as a marriage where adoption is concerned, etc., etc. Here is a summary by [factcheck.org](http://factcheck.org) which describes some of the issues: [http://www.factcheck.org/what\_is\_a\_civil\_union.html](http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html) Then perhaps, an easier and less provocative approach would be to work for broadening the rights of civil unions instead of forcing through that it must absolutely also be called marriage. If all that, legally, separates the two in the end is the name, then surely civil unions would be fine. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/124 "2011-07-02T16:19:57Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall explained, in an advisory ruling about a “civil unions” bill: She sounds more like a politician than an appointed expert hired to uphold the existing law. But if the legal content of civil unions were almost identical as that of marriage there would be no cause for talking of second-class status. At least in a juridical context, which is what I assume she is concerned about. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/125 "2011-07-02T16:36:00Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Then perhaps, an easier and less provocative approach would be to work for broadening the rights of civil unions instead of forcing through that it must absolutely also be called marriage. If all that, legally, separates the two in the end is the name, then surely civil unions would be fine. HA! You should do a search for some older threads in which this was advocated by me at length. Bottom line: it’s not about “rights”, after all. It’s about appropriating the word marriage as to erase any distinction between SS couples and OS couples. It’s about They don’t care as much about rights as they do the badge of marriage for the power it has—history, nature, and the special value the institution affords society be damned. FYI: I advocate every pro-gay rights their position there is, including gay adoption. The only point of contention for me is the use of the word “marriage”, and I can’t count the number of times I’ve been called a homophobe or bigot. Good luck to you. I have no desire to go through the same dance again. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/126 "2011-07-02T17:12:20Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Does it further society to help two people who, on the face of the matter, can never produce a child, the protection of which is the goal of marriage generally? Marriage isn’t about producing children no matter how often you repeat such an insult to every couple who doesn’t want or can’t have children. > [@David42](#): > > If the damage to natural nuclear families and children is too great in comparison to the harm done to gays by disallowing what has essentially become a tax break and not much more, then we should not allow gay marriage. “Nuclear families” aren’t more “natural” than homosexual couples. Less, if anything; for most of history the extended family was the norm. You are just indulging in the common right wing fantasy that 1950s America was the beginning of human traditions. > [@David42](#): > > The successful continuation of the species is our prime prerogative. I am not swayed by an argument that the world needs fewer people. It is just as valid to say the world should better utilize its resources instead. No it isn’t. We are using up irreplaceable resources to maintain the population we have now, and wishing hard isn’t going to make more appear. > [@David42](#): > > We do recall the idiocy of no fault divorce; indeed valid movements for creating covenant marriages, where no fault does not apply, are in our memories. You may think that no-fault divorce is a bad thing, I don’t. Turning a disintegrating marriage into a war where one person has to find or manufacture evidence against the other person in order to escape is twisted. > [@David42](#): > > Destruction of traditional marriage is a valid reason to deny gay marriage. No it isn’t. SSM doesn’t threaten traditional marriage; if anything it strengthens it. The one and only reason for opposition to SSM is a hatred of homosexuals. It is a position of pure evil, of malice for the sake of malice, lacking in any redeeming characteristic whatsoever. Just like its spiritual predecessor, opposition to mixed race marriage. > [@David42](#): > > I’m a thinking reasoning and fair man. But if I ever find that gays have been behind all these factors destroying marriage in order to bring us to this point, there is no argument you can give that will make me approve of your desire to marry. I can think of nothing more wicked than purposely causing the heartbreak borne by the children of broken families. > > Of course that last bit is speculation; I don’t know that any one group is behind any more than one of those issues. It’s called a “conspiracy theory”. Why don’t you claim that the Jews are out to destroy marriage while you are at it? “Thinking reasoning and fair”? Suuuure. > [@David42](#): > > It is the natural production of children society has an interest in protecting. According to you, because you are looking for an excuse to persecute people. Society has no more interest in the “natural” production of children than the “artificial” production of them. And the use of “artificial” methods is quite common among married couples, you know. Besides, we have too many people not too few; society doesn’t have any interest in the faster production of children, just the opposite. > [@Rune](#): > > Then perhaps, an easier and less provocative approach would be to work for broadening the rights of civil unions instead of forcing through that it must absolutely also be called marriage. If all that, legally, separates the two in the end is the name, then surely civil unions would be fine. Except that will never happen any more than the “separate but equal” of segregation was equal. Persecution is the point of civil unions. Caving in to the bigots never works out well. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/127 "2011-07-02T17:13:20Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Menopause represents the stage in a women’s life cycle in which the ovaries stop producing eggs, menses cease and fertility ends. Women most certainly have child bearing years- the years between the onset of menses and the cessation of menses. That range varies dramatically among women, and menopause can be artificially induced either chemically or surgically, by removal of the ovaries. > > Your facts are summarily incorrect. Women who are infertile, either due to congenital defect, due to illness or surgery, or due to being post menopausal are not denied the right to marry and the rights that come from being married. > > ETA: And of course Gay people can have children- if gay men produce sperm and gay women produce eggs and have a uterus they can produce children. They may not produce children as a couple, or may require other means to do (such as infertile heterosexual couples may need), but to suggest that the need for long-term commitment welcomed and sanctioned by the larger society is dependent on being able to have children is wrong. You have entirely missed my point. I do not deny that there is a point at which generally women no longer conceive. My point is that is NOT IMPOSSIBLE for a post menopausal woman to naturally conceive. It has happened before, and there is no one who can tell with certainty that it cannot happen in any particular couple. You can say with certainty that gays cannot conceive as a gay couple. And gays have every right to marry the opposite sex, have children, and obtain the protections that society offers for that relationship. I really cannot believe you argued in favor of gay couples marrying because gay individuals can have heterosexual sex. It’s like arguing against drunk driving laws because sober people don’t have as many accidents. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/128 "2011-07-02T17:15:58Z")
> [@David42](#): > > First you’d have to establish an equal protection violation. This has aleady been done in several states. I have a question for you, I’m in a “traditional” marriage. I’ve been with my wife for 21 years. We have three kids, all conceived and born in wedlock. My marriage is as vanilla as it gets. We have a gay couple living next door to us. How is my marriage going to suffer if those guys are allowed federal marriage benefits? Please be advised that religious answers have no legal validity and no persuasive power to me whatsoever since I regard all religion as empirically baseless superstition. The question, again, is how will it hurt MY marriage if my next door neighbors are allowed to get married. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/129 "2011-07-02T17:17:39Z")
> [@David42](#): > > You have entirely missed my point. I do not deny that there is a point at which generally women no longer conceive. My point is that is NOT IMPOSSIBLE for a post menopausal woman to naturally conceive. It is impossible for a woman who has had a hysterectomy to conceive. Should women who have had hystercomies be allowed to get married? This is a bullshit angle anyway since gay couples DO have children, so pretending you care about the children doesn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/130 "2011-07-02T17:20:14Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I think you have missed the distinction between naturally producing children and artificially producing by third party assistance, which I clearly made. There sis no difference at all to the children, and to your contrived justification for federal marriage benefits. Couples with kids are couples with kids. If you really care about the kids, you should care about ALL the kids. Obviously you don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/131 "2011-07-02T17:24:58Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Plus, Diogenes, it is the original families that should have been protected. Does adoption count as an “original family?” Should hetero couples who decide they don’t want kids be afforded marriage benefits? > [@](#): > > As well, I did concede that gays who did not obtain kids on purpose for a social agenda are worthy of recognition of the hardships of child rearing. Did you miss that part? I don’t know what you mean by “social agenda” or how you determine if that agenda exists. Aren’t hetero couples who offer to adopt children of pregnant women to keep them from having abortions doing so as part of a “social agenda?” ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/132 "2011-07-02T17:31:53Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Marriage isn’t about producing children no matter how often you repeat such an insult to every couple who doesn’t want or can’t have children. > > “Nuclear families” aren’t more “natural” than homosexual couples. Less, if anything; for most of history the extended family was the norm. You are just indulging in the common right wing fantasy that 1950s America was the beginning of human traditions. > > No it isn’t. We are using up irreplaceable resources to maintain the population we have now, and wishing hard isn’t going to make more appear. > > You may think that no-fault divorce is a bad thing, I don’t. Turning a disintegrating marriage into a war where one person has to find or manufacture evidence against the other person in order to escape is twisted. > > No it isn’t. SSM doesn’t threaten traditional marriage; if anything it strengthens it. The one and only reason for opposition to SSM is a hatred of homosexuals. It is a position of pure evil, of malice for the sake of malice, lacking in any redeeming characteristic whatsoever. Just like its spiritual predecessor, opposition to mixed race marriage. > > It’s called a “conspiracy theory”. Why don’t you claim that the Jews are out to destroy marriage while you are at it? “Thinking reasoning and fair”? Suuuure. > > According to you, because you are looking for an excuse to persecute people. Society has no more interest in the “natural” production of children than the “artificial” production of them. And the use of “artificial” methods is quite common among married couples, you know. > > Besides, we have too many people not too few; society doesn’t have any interest in the faster production of children, just the opposite. > > Except that will never happen any more than the “separate but equal” of segregation was equal. Persecution is the point of civil unions. > > Caving in to the bigots never works out well. Proof I am interested in persecuting people, please. I pointed out speculation and never tried to present that as proof. it would have been dishonest to say so, and that is fairness. I do have a suspicion that gays have been working on a social agenda for a long time. If you have any real evidence Jews are systematically working to destroy marriage, I’d like to see it. I have no cause for suspicion that Jews are trying to destroy marriage. heterosexual families are LESS NATURAL THAN gay families? That is so ridiculous I am not even going to address it. Pure fantasy. I think learning to get along in a relationship that you pledged for life is more constructive than throwing in the towel. Most people are engaged in an entirely fictitious quest for their soulmate. When a year goes by and they change their mind, rather than taking their vows seriously, they just do it all over again. Its irresponsible and we should go back to requiring proof. There are plenty of people who are adept at detecting false evidence, and if its a problem, we should seek better judges rather than letting the standard sink. I’d appreciate it if you desist with the ad hominem that I am a bigot. I read the stickies for this forum before posting and felt some relief that I wouldn’t be bullied by gay supporters with ad hominems if I speak my views. Call me a bigot again and I will see that the moderator is aware of your very weak and insulting argument technique. Please address the argument not me personally, or pretend to know my motivations. You are also prohibited from speculating on my motives. When you sate I am only interested in persecuting people you imply that I am lying by saying I purposefully mislead die to my alleged hatred. “Hater! Bigot! Homophobe!” is not a valid argument. It causes me to dismiss whatever you say, and unless you apologize I am going to ignore you in the future. I posted here at The Straight Dope specifically because that sort of immature behavior is prohibited. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/133 "2011-07-02T17:40:41Z")
> [@Implicit](#): > > Huh, what? Do you even know what post-menopausal means? Please explain how someone whose ovaries are no longer producing eggs can conceive a child, naturally of course, since you don’t approve of “artificial” methods of creating a family. You built a strawman. I never said i disapprove of artificial means of conception. I said I disapprove of gays who adopt children not for the children’s best interest but for the social agenda of normailizing homosexual unions. Please stick to what I said rather than claiming I said something I didn’t. When you disprove your own strawman, you are only arguing with yourself, you do realize? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/134 "2011-07-02T17:43:50Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Does adoption count as an “original family?” > > Should hetero couples who decide they don’t want kids be afforded marriage benefits? > > I don’t know what you mean by “social agenda” or how you determine if that agenda exists. Aren’t hetero couples who offer to adopt children of pregnant women to keep them from having abortions doing so as part of a “social agenda?” Those couples arguably do so to save the child’s life. I refer to gay activists who publish articles urging gay couples to adopt for the purpose of normalizing the gay lifestyle, rather than adoptions for the child’s best interest. Adopting to save the child’s life is world’s apart from adopting in order to prove you are normal. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/135 "2011-07-02T17:46:40Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Proof I am interested in persecuting people, please. Forbidding them to marry IS persecuting them. And it’s a historically common form of persecution at that. > [@David42](#): > > I pointed out speculation and never tried to present that as proof. it would have been dishonest to say so, and that is fairness. I do have a suspicion that gays have been working on a social agenda for a long time. If you have any real evidence Jews are systematically working to destroy marriage, I’d like to see it. I have no cause for suspicion that Jews are trying to destroy marriage. Just as you have no cause to think homosexuals are - except for your desire to demonize them. > [@David42](#): > > heterosexual families are LESS NATURAL THAN gay families? A variety of heterosexual family than is mainly common due to modern industrial society, yes. > [@David42](#): > > I think learning to get along in a relationship that you pledged for life is more constructive than throwing in the towel. People have stayed in marriages where both partners hated each other for decades. Why is dedicating your life to living in hatred like that more constructive than a divorce? > [@David42](#): > > I’d appreciate it if you desist with the ad hominem that I am a bigot. I read the stickies for this forum before posting and felt some relief that I wouldn’t be bullied by gay supporters with ad hominems if I speak my views. Call me a bigot again and I will see that the moderator is aware of your very weak and insulting argument technique. Ah, you can’t defend your beliefs so you wave the mods at me. And I’ve carefully avoided calling you any such thing. And it’s amusing for you to claim that you aren’t prejudiced against homosexuals right after speculating that they have some weird motiveless plot against marriage. > [@David42](#): > > I posted here at The Straight Dope specifically because that sort of immature behavior is prohibited. In other words, you think that you can post whatever kind of homophobic beliefs you like and the mods will prevent you from being argued against. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/136 "2011-07-02T17:49:02Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There sis no difference at all to the children, and to your contrived justification for federal marriage benefits. Couples with kids are couples with kids. If you really care about the kids, you should care about ALL the kids. Obviously you don’t. Please go back to my original statement rather than a partial clarification. If you do you will see that I originally decried artificially producing a child for the purpose of proving the legitimacy of gay unions. Children should not be pawns for a purpose other than rearing the child. I conceded that gays who happen to have children for reasons other than this are worthy of benefits for raising the child. It is very clear that having the children in mind is the whole underlying basis of practically everything I have said. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/137 "2011-07-02T17:51:31Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Marriage isn’t about producing children no matter how often you repeat such an insult to every couple who doesn’t want or can’t have children. As usual, you go go way too far, and invalidate your own point. Marriage isn’t about producing children? Not at all? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > “Nuclear families” aren’t more “natural” than homosexual couples. Less, if anything; for most of history the extended family was the norm. You are just indulging in the common right wing fantasy that 1950s America was the beginning of human traditions. :rolleyes: Oh, brother. Evidently it needs to be pointed out that nuclear families and extended families are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the norm is the nuclear family sits at the heart of the extended family. Do you really not know this? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The one and only reason for opposition to SSM is a hatred of homosexuals. It is a position of pure evil, of malice for the sake of malice, lacking in any redeeming characteristic whatsoever. Just like its spiritual predecessor, opposition to mixed race marriage. > > … > > Caving in to the bigots never works out well. Can’t you dial up the "hate:homophobe:bigot: ratio. If not, I’m going to have to ask for a refund. Oh, and where can I buy your comic book? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/138 "2011-07-02T17:53:37Z")
> [@David42](#): > > If you do you will see that I originally decried artificially producing a child for the purpose of proving the legitimacy of gay unions. As if that is likely to happen. Maybe you can find a loony or two that would take on that kind of burden for such a reason, but the problem there is that they are loony, not homosexual. And homosexuals have children without “artificial” means all the time you know. > [@David42](#): > > It is very clear that having the children in mind is the whole underlying basis of practically everything I have said. No it isn’t. Using “for the children” as an excuse to harass and oppress people is such a common right wing tactic that it’s a cliche. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/139 "2011-07-02T17:55:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Marriage isn’t about producing children? Not at all? Of course not. Let’s see you argue for the dissolution of marriages of couples that can’t have or don’t want children, if marriage is about children. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/140 "2011-07-02T17:59:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It is impossible for a woman who has had a hysterectomy to conceive. Should women who have had hystercomies be allowed to get married? > > This is a bullshit angle anyway since gay couples DO have children, so pretending you care about the children doesn’t work. Once again please go back to the original statement I sought to clarify. This is tiresome, Diogenes. I conceded earlier that there is a circumstance, where the reproductive organs are entirely missing. You act as though I didn’t say that. The whole point about the issue of whether gays are entitled to marriage because some straights don’t have children is one of privacy. In order to deny marriageon the basis of lack of children to be conceived to any heterosexual couple you’d have to pry in their biology, and even if you do violate their privacy with such an inquiry, there is no guarantee. Except in the case of organs missing. The “BullShit” is the claim that gay couples can have children together, as in two men engaging in anal intercourse is known to produce children. I really wanna see the proof, and I expect something better than that Arnold Schwarzenegger movie where he played a pregnant man. Maybe you watched that a few too many times, I dunno where you get your ideas. As I said, please stop cherry picking one-liners and look at everything I have said in context. Continue with this fallacious argument tactic and I will have to ignore your posts if you can’t debate legitimately. I shouldn’t have to repeat every word of every previous post in each post. Thanks a bunch for keeping that in mind! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381.md?page=8)