It’s not. It’s just far to shallow to be a valid argument. There are almost no requirements for straights to have and raise kids. Really horrible parents can raise kids who are really horrible citizens. Is that what society is protecting?
None of the above. Damn. I’ve said it and said it. We don’t demand childbearing of any couple. Period. Stop raising the red herring, it’s dead. That’s why married couples have certain benefits, while couples with children receive other and/or additional benefits. Some of these benefits are even available to those who do not marry.
I thought it was a little clever. At least as clever as you original analogy, but I suppose that’s a low bar, isn’t it?
Okay, so, what’s the point in this process where we decide gays don’t get to participate? Gays get married. They get some benefits. If they have kids, they get more benefits, because gays raising kids is as beneficial to society as straight people having kids. If they don’t have children, they don’t get any additional benefits, same as hetero couples. Where in this argument does the substitution of gay for straight throw the equation out of whack?
Look, you’re going to have to make up your mind one way or the other on this subject. Is having kids necessary to a marriage, or isn’t it? If it isn’t, then you can’t bring that up as an excuse to prevent gays from marrying. If it is, then you’re going to have to explain why that restriction is only applicable to gay couples, and not to straight couples.
Then what reason do you have for not allowing gays to marry? Your arguments are emotional and without any merit whatsoever. Howling about how gays are *different *isn’t a compelling argument.
You were doing okay, with a minimal error, but then failed at D. First, marriage does provide a benefit. But, in and of itself, always and in all ways distinct from childbearing, it could be argued that the societal benefits are limited in scope. Stable relationships of any size or shape would be similar in this regard. Children are what make the difference. Society, naturally, has a much longer timeframe in which to be concerned, because children are expected to take their place in a future, hopefully successful society.
And we’ve been telling you that there is, in practice, much less of a gap between straight couples and gay couples on this issue than you apparently seem to think. Gay parenting is becoming more and more common all the time. Like I said, I actually think I know more gay couples WITH children than I do without at this point.
So you say “Let gay parents have the rights of parents, then.” Okay…but if you’re willing to give gay parents the rights of parents, then why can’t gay couples get the rights of straight couples as far as marriage goes as well? Your argument is not consistent, and, frankly, it appears to change as new arguments against it come up.
Is there some consistent reason that a non-bio-parent member of a gay couple with kids should have fewer rights and responsibilities for those kids than a straight step-parent?
It’s all tied together, in knots that are way too fine and convoluted to pick apart…these “parental rights” and separate “marriage rights” that you seem to think are so easy to separate and apply to what are, to you, differing relationships.
Edited: And that’s without even mentioning gay couples who adopt. I fail to see ANY difference between a straight couple who, being infertile for whatever reason, adopt children, and a gay couple who adopt children. Not only that, but gay couples tend to adopt “problem” children in larger numbers, kids who are older, or not the “right race” (surprisingly more common than you might think) or mentally or physically handicapped. If that doesn’t confer a net benefit to society, I don’t know what does.
Hmmmm is this an emotional appeal?
By all means, lets. I think equal rights for human beings is a fine ideal don’t you? Isn’t that in societies best interests?
If it’s such a dead red herring, perhaps you should stop basing your objections to same-sex marriage on it.
Stop with the emotion. I might as well tell you not to equate a gay relationship to a straight relationship in terms of impact of a loss. Why? Because you just don’t know. But I haven’t, because emotions are the same all over. So knock it off.
That royally sucks, in all seriousness. I’m thinking, lawsuit. People get screwed. The question is, what is the remedy and is it commensurate?
Of course, wills are contested all the time. You’re arguing that difficulty demands equality. That’s inadequate.
Inferior? Not so much, I have to say. Except. They are not the same. So, if you’re asking as a quantitative measure, they don’t measure up to the benefit to society. As a standard or for practical measures.
No closets, no broken-down doors, no beatings by police or the public.
Quantitative? That word, I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Aside from that, though:
Why?
What nonsense. If we don’t mandate childbearing, why would we then turn around and ‘punish’ those past fertility who are unable to, I don’t know, bear children?? Is this supposed to be an argument? They at one time, presumably, had the potential, thus are entitled to marry. We promote and encourage the ideal, and those who approximate the ideal. It’s about promoting the best interests of society’s long-term health. That which does so is encouraged, that which does not, is not encouraged. To punish those who fall outside would require not only demanding proof of fertility and mandatory childbearing, but also to prevent households from forming in any other manner. We don’t do that. Live with whom you will. If it benefits society, you’ll be benefited in return.
And you’re arguing that, well, something demands inequality. The exact nature of that something is hard to determine since the sole ground you’ve given – childbearing – is also one that you’ve declared to be a red herring.
And I ask you, NaSultainne, to please define “the ideal”. It’s kind of like trying to pin down jello here…throw us a bone.
That’s pure bull. The family structure pre-dates society. Society cannot construct families. They’re a natural human social unit. Yes, they vary from culture to culture and time to time. But our society says, this is marriage.
Did I mention the Bible? No. So, if you wish to rely upon it, I’m cool. If not, I’m still cool. You choose.
If I’m to assume, based on what you’re repeatedly written, that childbearing is of no relevance, what “benefits” are you referring to?
If this does not apply to two people with mutual emotional and sexual attraction who wish to form a long-term bond, please explain.
They provide neither the quantity of potential marriages nor the likelihood of the potential children. Quantity. Get it? As it, they’re a small subset of the population, and laws promote the norm, as in, the usual.
Are children relevant or not? Can we get a firm decision, here?
If we don’t mandate childbearing, then why should we punish same sex couples?
Please explain how allowing post-menopausal women to marry benefits society in a way that allowing same-sex couples does not.