toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[Town Heretic]

:thumb: Now make a case that a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple are equivalent in the sense being discussed (procreation).

No more relevant than eye color, since that particular doesn't control the right, which believe it or not extends to octogenarians with no possibility of procreation, sterile couples, etc. The equity of the law is found in it's treatment of each citizen, in the equality of right if you will.

And, of course, the larger answer is that a homosexual couple may, in fact, procreate, if non traditionally. Or, they might adopt any number of children who are without parents. The latest studies I'm aware of appear to demonstrate they do a rather good job of it.

I fully admit that if you view procreation as superfluous (and an argument could be made) then the youtube video wouldn't be convincing.

To the legitimacy of marriage? It's inarguably superfluous from a contractual perspective or as a founding necessity else.

 

[zippy2006]

for me your post was not clear

Then I'm glad we cleared it up. I added a link to the confusing post :e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Only if you are claiming that, as I pointed out to TH, procreation is superfluous and can be safely separated from the sexual act itself. Elo seems to think so, but I can say with full confidence that God (or nature for the atheist) disagrees with him.

:e4e:

Do you think procreation is the most significant aspect of marital union?

 

[zippy2006]

No more relevant than eye color, since that particular doesn't control the right, which believe it or not extends to octogenarians with no possibility of procreation, sterile couples, etc.

This has been addressed.

I fully admit that if you view procreation as superfluous (and an argument could be made) then the youtube video wouldn't be convincing.

To the legitimacy of marriage? It's inarguably superfluous from a contractual perspective or as a founding necessity else.

Superfluous to society, to the sexual act, and to marriage. All three are wrong. The first is what you require to actually address my argument from the governmental/societal point of view. Procreation isn't adoption.

 

[zippy2006]

Do you think procreation is the most significant aspect of marital union?

In a civil sense? (from the govt's point of view?)

 

[Arthur Brain]

In a civil sense? (from the govt's point of view?)

No, from you own point of view.

 

[zippy2006]

No, from you own point of view.

Yes. I see romantic love exercised within God's plan (marriage) as inseparable from procreation.

..but this is off topic, the thread is about the law, not my own views. The government undoubtedly sees marriage as grounded in procreation and incorporating new members into society.

:e4e:

 

[bybee]

I believe that procreation can be separated from, and is superfluous to, several sexual acts that heterosexuals commonly engage in. Are you opposed to married heterosexual couples engaging in disordered sexual acts, i.e. anything other than strictly male to female genital contact for the purpose of procreation?

Gee whiz! I hope nobody answers that. I think I hear my mother calling me! Peace, guys

 

[chrysostom]

Do you think procreation is the most significant aspect of marital union?

I do
and
what do you think?

 

[Town Heretic]

This has been addressed.

Good for you. It's still the point I meant to make and stand behind. It's one you may have touched on, but there's no real answer for it that doesn't involve a retreat behind dogmatic lines that do not and should not control the issue in a secular compact which recognizes the legitimacy of every man's right to hold his own faith or none at all.

Superfluous to society,

A society must have itself and sustain itself, so of course not.

to the sexual act, and to marriage

Absolutely (see: the sterile, octogenarians, and those who use the act for intimacy and satisfaction alone within the context of the marriage contract).

All three are wrong.

I believe you believe that.

The first is what you require to actually address my argument from the governmental/societal point of view. Procreation isn't adoption.

I don't really have to knock anyone's argument on its posterior so long as mine stands and it does, but as to the last bit...who said it was? But what's the point of procreation, in terms of societal interest? And how is that not met by adoption, or more closely, the reproduction of children by means of cross over between lesbian and gay couples or between them and willing heterosexual surrogates?

That is, beyond a purely moral argument of a particular faith, if the means to produce children and then rear them within the confines of the couple interested is had, the distinction relating to surrogate or c-section seems entirely moral and particularly so, or superfluous.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Good for you. It's still the point I meant to make and stand behind. It's one you may have touched on, but there's no real answer for it that doesn't involve a retreat behind dogmatic lines that do not and should not control the issue in a secular compact which recognizes the legitimacy of every man's right to hold his own faith or none at all.

No dogma necessary. I think you saw this in your last bit.

Superfluous to society,

A society must have itself and sustain itself, so of course not.

This is the crux. I meant it in the way that procreation via heterosexual couples is superfluous to society. That the heterosexuals are rendering society no service by their procreation.

I don't really have to knock anyone's argument on its posterior so long as mine stands and it does, but as to the last bit...who said it was? But what's the point of procreation, in terms of societal interest? And how is that not met by adoption, or more closely, the reproduction of children by means of cross over between lesbian and gay couples or between them and willing heterosexual surrogates?

So at best you'd say that the homosexual couple provides half the service, and that's only if you split procreation and rearing equally (absurd imo). A married couple provides a procreative and supporting environment for a family, and that is something that a homosexual couple can never do. Total 'equality' simply isn't warranted from the civil point of view.

:e4e:

 

[Granite]

Yes. I see romantic love exercised within God's plan (marriage) as inseparable from procreation.

..but this is off topic, the thread is about the law, not my own views. The government undoubtedly sees marriage as grounded in procreation and incorporating new members into society.

:e4e:

So romance can't exist without children?

 

[Breathe]

So romance can't exist without children?

Ha! I would say that once children enter the picture, there is waaaaaay less romance.

 

[IXOYE]

anybody can live with another
if
they do not want to be alone
and
for that there is no need of an institution
but
there is for the child and the mother who takes care of the child

There was no "institution" of marriage in the Bible. You made a business partnership agreement, had a feast of both familes, retired to a tent to make sure the commitment was kept. The sexual act was the confirmation of them being together.

THE COMMITMENT is that which would be HOLY today. To stay no matter what. And to make it work.

 

[IXOYE]

Good for you. It's still the point I meant to make and stand behind. It's one you may have touched on, but there's no real answer for it that doesn't involve a retreat behind dogmatic lines that do not and should not control the issue in a secular compact which recognizes the legitimacy of every man's right to hold his own faith or none at all.


A society must have itself and sustain itself, so of course not.


Absolutely (see: the sterile, octogenarians, and those who use the act for intimacy and satisfaction alone within the context of the marriage contract).


I believe you believe that.


I don't really have to knock anyone's argument on its posterior so long as mine stands and it does, but as to the last bit...who said it was? But what's the point of procreation, in terms of societal interest? And how is that not met by adoption, or more closely, the reproduction of children by means of cross over between lesbian and gay couples or between them and willing heterosexual surrogates?

That is, beyond a purely moral argument of a particular faith, if the means to produce children and then rear them within the confines of the couple interested is had, the distinction relating to surrogate or c-section seems entirely moral and particularly so, or superfluous.

:e4e:

There are cultures that the parents didn't raise the child past infancy, the community did.

 

[elohiym]

This is the crux. I meant it in the way that procreation via heterosexual couples is superfluous to society. That the heterosexuals are rendering society no service by their procreation.

Couples, or single parents, who raise children to adulthood, and teach them the right way they should go are obviously rendering a service to society and humanity. However, one might argue that a man who fathers many children with different women, absent commitments to their care and rearing, is doing society a disservice.

 

[elohiym]

Ha! I would say that once children enter the picture, there is waaaaaay less romance.

Speak for yourself, please.

We didn't get five children through less romance.

 

[Son of Jack]

Speak for yourself, please.

Just gotta learn to be a little more creative (and concise).

 

[zippy2006]

Couples, or single parents, who raise children to adulthood, and teach them the right way they should go are obviously rendering a service to society and humanity. However, one might argue that a man who fathers many children with different women, absent commitments to their care and rearing, is doing society a disservice.

My point was that the government naturally sees the most utility in a married (heterosexual) couple. How exactly does this oppose that?

 

[kmoney]

The government undoubtedly sees marriage as grounded in procreation and incorporating new members into society.

:e4e:

Why do you say that?