they do not have children. If they do, we will celebrate the union that produced the child rather than a union that mocks it.
Have a good Sunday, and while you are working think about how to devise a test for childless couples that is both highly accurate and doesn’t violate their privacy–one for gay couples and one for straights so that we know who is a childless couple and who isn’t.
So only marriages that produce children, and continue to do so, are not deserving of mocking? Even ones with one man and one woman? Do your grandparents know that?
Dude, you have more problems than can be adequately addressed on a mere message board.
This is wrong. Please don’t make this worse by screwing up scientific terms.
Gays do have children. This “mockery” thing is entirely in your head.
then you should know that "any two idiots"without a condom cannot necessarily produce a child.
Or did you mean that straight people are idiots?
Easy. Because the facts do not support that bit of handwaving, nor would they imply that SS marriages should not be allowed even if they did.
Then what do you prose the proper terms and standards are?
I’ve repeatedly clarified I mean gay sex does not produce children.
Wow. :eek:
They can’t necessarily do it, but they certainly can do it. So society doesn’t need to award some kind of super special status to couple who can reproduce, particularly since we’re all agreed that gays can have children and not all straight people can reproduce.
Where are you getting this?
I propose you stop talking about theories and hypotheses because they’re not relevant, and explaining the terms will just derail the thread.
Unless the gay person has sex with a gay person of the opposite sex, or with a straight person, for the purpose of having children. Which does happen. And gays can adopt. So what is the relevance of this tangent?
Oh, society didn’t change over night. Shall I get you a hanky?
The only way it’s not a fantasy is if you believe that man = woman. If that were the case we wouldn’t be talking about the differences between two different things, now would we? Let me ask you this, aside from the physical differences, do you hold that a mother and father give a child the EXACT same things. That they are redundant? Do you hold that there is not a special bond that happens between a mother and baby during pregnancy and during the first year?
Am not. And since I explained how they are doing that, I win. 
Actually, that’s not true. Those two idiots have to be a man and a woman, don’t they? But I do think it is interesting that in this discussion (like others before you) you seek to argue your position by pointing to the very worst example from the other side. While I am more than happy to use the best examples of gay couples for the sake of my comparisons. I wonder why that is?
And there is a reason for society to acknowledge the difference: because while other situations are possible, and even somewhat beneficial, it remains that the ideal situation in which to raise a child is in a loving family headed by a married man and woman. Do you deny that that is the ideal situation? If you don’t, then surely society has an interest in preserving that ideal, no? If you deny that it is an ideal situation, what might be the ideal situation. Also, like I asked previously, do you hold that a man and a woman bring the exact same things to rearing a child? That they are 100% redundant?
You keep saying this, but you still haven’t provided a cite. I’m willing to read your evidence if you will provide it.
Oh, so you’re saying it’s your *opinion *that gays are using children as pawns to achieve marriage equality? If so, what evidence do you base this opinion on? If there is no evidence you can provide, why bring it up? Are you attempting to present this opinion as fact to sway others’ opinions of the motives of gay parents? Why should I be concerned in a hypothetical that has no basis in reality? Or should I assume there is a basis in reality on your say-so alone?
Further, if you are in support of gays raising children, don’t you think it’s beneficial for the children to be raised in a committed, legally recognized relationship? Is it more or less beneficial if families with children to have married parents?
Who said gays are perfect? Hell, I don’t even think I am perfect? But because I’m straight, the government sees no interest in getting involved in my choice of whether and whom to marry. How does being gay and imperfect necessitate government interest, all other things being equal?
With regard to SSM, it doesn’t matter whether the gay is a good person, just as it doesn’t matter if the straight is a good person with respect to legal marriage.
You think I’m in favor of children being used as pawns because I’m asking for justification for denying gays legal marriage rights? That’s interesting. I think you’re going to be hard-pressed finding anyone that is advancing the idea that children should be used as pawns. I haven’t seen it in this thread.
Unmarried people living together have fewer expenses due to shared resources. Which tax breaks do married people without children get that gay couples should not get (differentiating, of course, the tax breaks that people supporting dependents get that married couples and single people aren’t eligible for)? Of course, I’ll keep it in mind that it’s your opinion and not necessarily based on fact.
Here I’ll quote you:
[QUOTE=David42]
Marriage deductions should only belong to those with a hardship that society has an interest oin supporting.
[/QUOTE]
What are these hardships that society has an interest in supporting should certain married couples get that other married couples shouldn’t get? The cost of raising a child? Or what?
If you explain your position with more specifics, it might help readers understand where your position better.
No. But we’re not talking about trying to preserve those marriages specifically. We’re talking about preserving the idea of marriage for the ideal situation. Not the outliers.
Here is what is unique: only one flavor of couple can have a baby and raise a child that shares their genes, giving the child the benefit of having the two people closest to him receive what a woman can give and what a man can give. Guess which couple that is?
Do you hold that what a mother gives a child is 100% identical to what a father gives a child? That it is fully redundant?
Maybe it’s a bit more difficult than you thought. If you would like to answer my post more fully I’ll be happy to comment.
I didn’t say anything about society changing over night. You said the gays’ other demands were “right and proper” (although for some reason it’s taken decades for society to acknowledge that). But now, somehow, they’ve gone too far. You’re asking us to pretend everybody acknowledge the other demands were reasonable.
That’s actually not relevant to the argument. Your relationship is not identical to my relationship, but for society’s purposes, they’d be treated the same. Not all straight relationships are identical to each other and not all gay relationships are the same. The questions is, why should they be treated differently? And so far I’m hearing nothing.
I don’t think any two people are redundant or that any two people give the exact same things to their child. I don’t think something super magical happens between a mother and a young child, although I have no doubt it’s very special to both of them. I think that if the mother dies in childbirth, the child will bond in pretty much the same way with the father or the adoptive mother, or for that matter, the nurse if the mother simply isn’t around much.
You didn’t explain anything. You asserted a bunch of things and opted to use a scary word (“destroy”) instead of a rational one (“change”) because you thought it bolstered your case.
I’m still waiting for the “so what” here. I’ve asked David42 for it, too.
Yes, I do. I don’t think an ideal straight couple is preferable to an ideal gay couple. Not all men at the same, not all women are the same, not all gays and straights are the same. They don’t all contribute the same thing to a child. The best thing for a child is being raised by parents in a stable, happy, well adjusted relationship. The data happens to back me up on that.
What we do not do is pry into people’s privacy. The issue of marriage is not based on romance. Emotions are not objective. Sorry.
It is not a burden in a proper debate to “prove” what is in the realm of common knowledge. Its not my fault if you do not read the news and are not aware of things that most people know. I need not prove the sky is blue or that water is wet or that fire will burn you. Asking repeatedly for proof of what is in the realm of common knowledge is obstructionist and really means you know you’re wrong but cannot admit it. If you want some proof of common knowledge, Google is there for you.
My opinion is IF they do and evidence is in front of an agency or court that this is the case, that it should be a major negative factor in the decision, which PROBABLY should be against them. But perhaps other factors might change that opinion. Otherwise, see what I said about the realm of common knowledge above.
It is optimum. But there are other interests as well and I don’t think that it can be arranged so that its perfect. No of us are, and our system never will be either.
No one said so. I was just wondering if you thought so because you seem to think gays should get a free pass at adoption regardless of parenting qualifications. I’m glad that you have clarified. Now that you are clear you don’t think gays are perfect, is there some other reason straights should demonstrate the best interest of the child and gays shouldn’t? If not, its high time to say you agree with me.
It matters when it comes to adoption, which is the context, of what kind of parent you will make. Are you gonna adopt children out to child molestors who will pimp the kid out to his child molesting buddies? Of course not. Nor should you when any other reason for adoption is not the child’s best interest.
I asked that because you seem to disagree with me when I say “IF this happens we need to be alert for it.”
I’d treat gay couples without children the same as married couples without children as far as tax breaks for that reason. If I could determine without privacy violations that a straight couple was trying hard to have a child, I’d change that slightly so they could save for a child, or if a gay couple planned on adopting.
The more specifc I get the more everyone garbles it, if you ask me.
In this country it’s been a good century or two since marriage was based on anything other than romance. People get married with no intention of ever having children and there are not that many arranged marriages in the U.S. or in the West generally. If you can convince someone to marry you for reasons that aren’t related to romance, you’re welcome to do that. But for most people, romance is what it’s about. That’s why people get married. Gays also have romantic relationships, and there’s no reason not to recongize them.
Boatloads of studies show that every time we change marriage a little bit divorce rates go up. If you don’t know about increasing divorce rates, thats your own fault. See what I told Marley about the realm of Common Knowledge.
If indeed you are a denizen of the ivory towers, you certainly do not lecture on debate or logic. You should ask one of your peers for some tips or google “logical fallacy” but otherwise your education is not my responsibility.
Cite this please.
Also, is it your contention that allowing interracial marriage was a bad thing for society?