Which is more less, and why?
You did not, and (as has been repeatedly pointed out to you) repeating nonsense does not make it any less nonsensical.
Yes it does. Your argument leads inexorably to that conclusion; therefore, you must either accept it or abandon your argument.
Yes; when someone raises a point based on erudite concepts, those concepts should be spelled out. Ergo, a partial listing of facts with which you seem to be admitting unfamiliarity:
-
People die.
1a. Surviving spouses remarry. -
Marriages break up.
2a. Divorcees remarry.
Ghu, grant me the inspiration to figure out how to argue with someone who states that one situation can be both equal to and better than another, 'cuz I got nothing…
No. You claimed that if one was not a biological parent, then the child was not being raised with the “biological parents.” To claim otherwise is weaseling.
Not really. You have evaded answering why permitting same sex marriages in any way affects opposite sex marriages. Adding to the number of people recognized as married does not take away anything from people who marry in the traditional way. You have persistently ducked answering that question. Your argument is based on nothing more than “we can never change even when everything connected with the situation changes around it.”
Basically, you simply assert that the status quo must be preserved for all time for no better reason than that it is the status quo.
Your odd claim that only couples in which both parties provided gamtes could be considered “biological parents.”
You are the one proposing that we cast off children. You are denying to various children the benefits of the support of law to their families based on an adherence to an ideal that is already unreached by over 40% of the population (based on the number of families already affected by divorce and remarriage, the number of children adopted, and other situations outside your “ideal.”)
If children do best in stable families, then removing barriers to recognition in law to same sex couples is the best way to provide that stability for children of same sex couples.
It is not. It is the heart of this discussion with your insistence that marriage is all about raising the children in your non-existent ideal society. Most proponents of same sex marriage recognize that marriage has far more to do with the couple than with any hypothetical children. Marriage can be an extremely important aspect of child rearing, but you have made child rearing the sole point of that act, ignoring the issues of the actual couple, completely.
That you would dodge this point with the wholly wrong claim that it is a different discussion casts the rest of your arguments into question as to whether you are even serious in your position.
It happens every time a family has to give up tax breaks because the parents cannot jointly file as married. It happens every time a child has to wait on medical care because hospitals do not recognize one parent’s rights because the parents cannot be married and one parent is not recognized as a legal guardian.
[quote=“tomndebb, post:426, topic:616983”]
No. You claimed that if one was not a biological parent, then the child was not being raised with the “biological parents.” To claim otherwise is weaseling.
Actually, I addressed this question specifically and pointedly. 1) ssm does not effect those currently in traditional marriages; 2) changing the institution of marriage makes it into something else.
Or until a better alternative is created. This is not one of those because it creates something entirely different.
Well, I’m no biologist, but, yeah, that’s my claim. I can’t quite figure out how that’s odd.
I’d love to see that reference. I won’t hold my breath.
So almost 60% do reach it? Be that as it may… what benefits?
That’s not my position. Children do best with their biological parents, the best expression of that being within a stable family unit.
Why do ss couples need marriage to create a stable environment for children?
From a secular perspective, yes.
Exactly. Then why is ssm necessary?
IN this instance, yes I have. Why is that bad?
No dodging here. Just trying to stay on point.
. Assuming this is true, what is the result? Are gay couples poorer than hetero couples?
Explain how this plays out. I’m not gay and I don’t have gay children so I don’t know the mechanics of this.
[quote=“hoopified, post:427, topic:616983”]
(] replaced with html charactor code to deal with the VB code parser’s confusion)
Try the preview function first to see if you’re mangling someone’s quote.
:smack: Gaudere’s Law applies to VB code as well.
They can’t visit the child undergoing treatment, even if they are the primary caretaker. They are often unable to speak with the doctor to even discuss what treatment options are available. It sometimes plays out as if a complete stranger had found someone bleeding in the street and dropped them off at the emergency room.
Here’s an article with a few examples both with and without children you can read.
Er, by now you should have noticed that posting logical contradictions (e.g. a better alternative would be acceptable, but something different from the status quo would not be acceptable) will not make you opponents shoot off sparks and collapse like a hostile computer being subjected to the James T. Kirk Shutdown Procedure. It will, instead, result in your arguments (but not you personally, as we have basic rules of courtesy) being subjected to merciless mockery.
Admitting that you’re ignorant of anything you haven’t personally experienced is a disqualification from having an opinion that anyone else is bound to respect.
Well, hoopified won’t answer my questions, let’s see how well he answers tom’s.
And can you quantify this “else”? What effects will an American hetero couple married in 2015 (presumably after more states have legalized SSM) experience that an American hetero couple married in 1985 would not?
Entirely different, you say? How? How are Canadian marriages sealed today different from those sealed in 2000? How are marriages sealed in Vermont or Connecticut today different from those sealed in 2000? If it’s entirely different, it should be significantly different and demonstrably different, no?
What is more important, if either - stability or biology? And that’s generously assuming your axiom about where children do best is true.
In fact, by your claim, a child is better off with a lesbian couple (one of whom is the child’s biological mother) than with a hetero adoptive couple (neither of whom has a biological relationship to the child), no?
It is a useful legal status that carries numerous benefits that other citizens already enjoy. What purpose is served by denying it to them?
I’m frankly baffled by this resistance. Citizens of your country want to exercise a privilege that other citizens already enjoy, and it won’t cost you anything to let them (if it did and you could demonstrate such, that could be your secular reason), so why oppose it?
[quote=“Steve_MB, post:431, topic:616983”]
That’s all liberals have is mockery. But that’s ok. I knew that going in.
Nonetheless… what’s your point?
See, that’s the problem here. Just because someone does or does not have experience in this arena does not make their arguments worthy of respect. It’s the efficacy of the arguments that demands respect. You don’t thinkmuch of mine. That’s fine. I don’t think much of the counter arguments here either. Wait… one hasn’t been presented yet. Never mind.
Sure. Marriage is no longer between a man and woman. It becomes between consenting adults - number indeterminate.
See above.
We’re not grading on a scale here. Anything other thanboth biological parents is less.
On the one hand, there is the claim that ssc are already stable, capable, and motivated to provide homes for children, on the other it can’t be done without government interference.Decide which it is?
Go ahead and be baffled.
Anyone is free to enter into the insitution of marriage ust like the rest of us.
It’s not about cost. I havae given you a secular reason. Because it permanently changes the institution of marriage.
That’s not a reason, that’s a description.
Did interracial marriages permanently change the institution of marriage? Did the banning of polygamy?
Why is this change worse? Specifically, please.
Show me the polygamy in Canada.
Oh wait there is none.
That’s a false comparison. The constitution mentions nothing about sexual orientation. The Loving case remedied a terrible wrong so that anyone can enter into marriage with anyone they wish. Gay people have exactly the same marriage options as anyone else.
It says nothing about interracial marriages or polygamy either. The only reason this comparison rings false to you is that you agree with the other changes.
That’s just stupid. You know deep down that that argument is just cheap nonsense, don’t you?
A hetero person can marry someone of age that they are sexually attracted to. A gay person doesn’t have that right, and the very idea that you’d use that puerile argument shows that you either haven’t thought hard about this issue or have no intention of debating in good faith.
It goes to specifically the discredited idea that Prop 8 (and other similar measures) are denying anybody anything. It clearly does not.
Second, the constitution speak to what the Loving case remedied. The constitution never mentions, nor hints at, protections for sexual orientation.
Of course it does, it denies them the right to marry. You are pretending that they have the right because they can marry an opposite-sex person, but that’s moronic on its face.
Assuming you are a man, would you consider yourself as having the right to marry if you could only marry men?
The constitution says nothing of interracial marriages. It also says nothing about banning polygamy.
So you’re just clearly wrong there.