But there is no obstacle to gay couples having children either; after all, as you yourself support, they could adopt. So why not extend such recognition to them as well?
ETA: Boy, this thread moves fast. The above was in response to magellan01’s last post.
Now you’re calling it a union??? Fuck that, that term is reserved FOR GAYS.
First you claimed I was lying. Then you granted that I wasn’t. (Without apologizing.) Now you have no come back and revert to this empty accusation, which you had already retracted.
That’s some powerful dumb. Really, bed would be the better bet for you at this point. But here’s something to think about, not to mention the answer to what will probably be your next moronic post:
Post 356.
Post 362.
Sleep well.
Indeed; I don’t see how society could cope with such an expansion of the terminology. There will be nebulous ill-effects, I warn you…
Magellan, please go read my post about the CA Constitutional Convention. While I won’t say your definition is arbitrary, there is nothing magical or inherent about it. It’s simply the definition you’ve decided is the one that applies to marriage.
Two-hundred years ago, it was natural for women to have no property rights in marriage. There were people who thought that for a woman to have property rights would undermine the definition of marriage itself.
Fifty years ago, it was natural for there to be no interracial marriages. Again, there were people who thought marriage would be undermined if interracial marriages were allowed.
You’ve simply latched onto the natural definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman because that’s what you’re used to. You don’t incorporate all these other things (property rights, race) that people once thought were critical to the definition for whatever reason. That doesn’t mean your definition is any more correct than theirs were.
I acknowledge what I think is fact, that gays can be excellent parents. I think that the ideal situation for the raising of children involves a child being raised by a mother and a father, a female and a male. If that is in fact the case, and I believe it to be so, then society could, and should, have a term that addresses the distinction. It should build in a bias for that that situation.
Man. I’m getting tired from all this typing. I’ll be heading off soon.
Deal. Smartest thing you said so far.
Take that any way you want.
Re: homosexual couples having and raising children.
They can also have heterosexual sex with a willing stranger. I hear that happens once or twice in the straight world.
They can raise children from previous marriages/relationships or even rapes, as has already been mentioned (though perhaps without the unpleasant rape part).
They can call up an ex of the opposite sex for a roll in the hay for procreation’s sake. Maybe bring everyone’s current partners along.
They can find a same-sex couple of the opposite sex and swap partners + a couple of bottles of tequila, and get a 2-for-1.
They can get eggs/sperm donated from eachother’s siblings, or friends, or exes, or complete strangers.
Wait a few years and parthenogenesis and androgenesis will probably be possible.
I could go on…
I’d appreciate a response to #379 before you shove off. I’m genuinely curious, not baiting. It’s short!
I found your cite quite insulting. I know why you offered it, but the argument is not a new one. I will say that I’ve stripped the concept of marriage down to its essence. There is biology, which hasn’t changed, and history, which is the reality of what has happened to date and gives us the definition we have (for most people). Those things are part of the fabric of our society. The institution, thusly understood, has served us well and am loathe to change it.
I’m not sure if you’re asking more about the numbers (one of each) or the sexes (different). actually, I’m confused as to what you’re looking for, period. can you please clarify your question?
.
This statement does not compute, but even considering that the human species has only been around for the biological blink of an eye, Applied Biology has changed. A lot. I was genetically engineering bacteria and extracting/imaging DNA at a community college at the age of 16 in 1992. Who the hell knows what they’re doing in the comparable classes today.
As written by a few.
See “few” above.
You said:
To which I responded:
with a relevant cite. So I will ask again, what is so special about the 1 man 1 woman equation? Like it or not, marriage is hardly a holy unbreakable bond this day and age, so why forbid it to 2 consenting adults who are in love?
What I meant is that it takes a man and a woman to create a baby.
So. Do you deny that in our history that marriage has been the provence of a man and a woman?
And now I think I’m off to bed. Good night.
I think she’s saying that if you’re going to deny marriage to gays in order to promote your ideal child rearing unit, what are going to deny divorcees and widowers to promote it? Or is that just different
Exclusively? And only in that configuration? Yes. But my point was only that history is not perfect, and it has a tendancy to under-report things. So I tend to take it with a grain of salt.
The Pirate code, is really more of a guideline…
That’s bullshit, and you know it. “In our history” means women as chattel. If you want something meaningful think “family” and “village.” Gays have always been an inseparable part of that and we continue to create our own families today.
I meant to come back to this, but got distracted. That is the gist of what I was getting at.
Because, as I’ve stated, I think that a man-woman marriage provides the best environment for children. While SS couples can provide loving environments, as well, i think it behooves society to encourage the ideal. i forget all the specifics of what I’ve read, but children get different things from a male and a female parent. A single mom I know, a very good friend, liked to have me come over to be around her son and play with him because she saw that he had gotten things from his dad, who was no longer around, that she just couldn’t give him.
I hope that answers your question, HoboStew. If not, I’ll try to do better tomorrow. But for now, I must sign off.
Good night. And thank you, and others, for the civil discussion on a sensitive issue.
Then marriage should only apply to biologically created families?
everything else can and was argued against interacial marraiges and property rights for women and some were loath to change those, but they were wrong