The fact they can spit out kids is not deserving of any recognition or special status.
It's the fact that they 'can spit out kids' which gives them a responsibility towards each other and their kids. This responsibility begins already before they have children, because a child needs to be able to live in a safe, caring environment. The recognition is a reminder about how important their relationship is. This is particularly significant for men, who unlike women, don't carry a child for 9 months in their own body. That's why marriage as recognized by society is a form of protection for women and children.
I am going to quote Ryan Anderson, who has written a lot about this topic:
"While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for childbearing and childrearing. Adults are free to make choices about their relationships without redefining marriage and do not need government sanction or license to do so.
Government is not in the business of affirming our love. Rather, it leaves consenting adults free to live and love as they choose. There is no ban on same-sex marriage. Two people of the same sex may choose to live together, choose to join a religious community that blesses their relationship, and choose a workplace offering joint benefits. There is nothing illegal about this.
What is at issue is whether the government will recognize such relationships as marriages—and then force every citizen, house of worship, and business to do so as well. At issue is whether policy will coerce and compel others to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages. All people have the freedom to live as they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else."
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I will take the gay couple that adopts and raises a child over an irresponsible pair of married misfits who created and abandoned that child
As would I. Any single person would be better than parents who abandon their child. Even dogs could do a better job. And when you say that it takes a village to raise a child, it points to the responsibility of society towards the wellbeing of children. But this has nothing to do with marriage.
It's simply because the sexual relationship between man and woman has a unique, essential purpose that this relationship deserves to have a unique form of recognition. If you want to have a recognition for another type of relationship, you can have that too, like a civil union or cohabitation contract. Why does it have to be the same exact form of recognition for different types of relationships?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
This is like saying the unmarried old woman who lives next door is not much use, ...
I didn't say that people have not much use when their relationship is not as important for society as another type of relationship. The topic is about so called marriage equality. It's not about how people can in general contribute to society.
Fine, you just keep your fingers in your ears and decide there is nothing to convince you without even hearing the argument first.
I replied to your comments. Did I miss something important?
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Same-sex marriage is not illegal. It just isn't recognized by the petty government. If you want to marry someone of the same sex... or the opposite sex....or multiple people...or your pet...or your car, you just do it however you want to do it....in private...in a lavish ceremony, your choice. Stop looking to the government for permission to live your life.*
I agree. People can have private marriage ceremonies any way they want. But they can't force me to recognize all kinds of relationships (in the form of marriage) as equally important for society. And because the sexual relationship between man and woman is literally of vital importance for the survival of our bloodline, tribe, race, nation … this type of relationship deserves a unique form of recognition by society.
even if marriage is allowed that is a separate question from procreation anyway. Unmarried people procreate anyway. If its procreation you have a problem with, that is what you ban, not marriage.
Marriages between first degree blood relatives are illegal in every country of the world, even though consensual incest itself is legal in a number of places like Spain, Russia, Australia, Brazil etc. So it's obvious that there's a universal connection between marriage and procreation. If you want to disconnect procreation from marriage, then what would be the difference with a civil union or cohabitation contract?
twin brother and sister having 3 basically normal kids. Its quite possible and has happened.
Of course it may happen that siblings have healthy children, but increased health risks are still the reason that marriages between siblings are forbidden everywhere now.
Whether two consenting people can procreate or not, maybe or maybe not, is not the business of the government unless the government is our master and we are but slaves.
There's no futur without children and for the protection of women and children, men shouldn't be allowed to make women pregnant without assuming responsibility. That's the reason why society and its government have an interest in procreation.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
So opposite sex couples who cannot produce offspring shouldn't get married? Should they get divorced? Is the only goal of marriage to produce offspring?
The only reason that some infertile couples can marry is because they are the same type of relationship as fertile couples who are allowed to marry. For example: If an opposite sex couple of two 80+ year old get married, it's the same type of relationship as a similar couple of the same age who got married at a younger age.
A relationship between man and woman also starts as only potentially fertile. You never know if they will really be able to procreate. And because procreation starts with a relationship and requires to have a stable commitment in order to create a safe, healthy environment for children to grow up, you can't tell people that they have to be sure already that they are fertile, in order to get married. Marriage comes first, and then their sexual intercourse may result in having children. So there's a bit of a gray zone between being potentially fertile, actually fertile and perhaps never fertile.
To force people to divorce because of infertility is cruel, because they have become intimate and shared their lives, so it would be painful to force them to separate. And at what point are you going to decide that someone is permanently unable to have children?
It's clear also that siblings aren't allowed to get married, fertile or not, and that's only because procreation is the reason marriage exists and incest leads to genetical degeneration. But once you allow same sex marriage, how are you going to argue that siblings aren't allowed to marry? Or are you going to discriminate against opposite sex couples by letting only same sex siblings get married? And there are already examples of such couples you can find on internet who would like to get married to enjoy certain benefits given to married couples.
And for those who support same sex marriage, I have also this question: in some places cousins are allowed to marry and in some places they are not allowed to marry. Would you consider this unjust discrimination? If so, why? And if not, then why would it be unjust discrimination to not allow same sex couples to marry?
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Plenty of comments here saying that same sex couples can't have kids. Thats totally incorrect. They can adopt, they can have sperm donors, they can even be transgender and do it the 'normal' way.
By your definition anyone can of course 'have' a child. Three sisters could raise several children together if they want and are allowed to. But this has nothing to do with marriage. The point is that a man and a woman are responsible for their own children and that's why it's important that this type of relationship receives a form of recognition with specific rights and duties. To extend this recognition to other types of relationships obscures the meaning of the relationship between man and woman. It's not the fact that you are able to obtain and raise child which matters, but your biological connection to them.
And it's in the best interest for children to have both a mother and father anyway, because it offers better role models for them and it doesn't make them feel so different from others who have their own mother and father.
Transgender identities obscure the meaning of being a man and a woman, by focusing mostly on feelings and fantasy. So when there's a transgender woman with male genitals in relationship with a cisgender woman you might want to call this a same sex relationship. But when you start calling someone a woman who has naturally functional male reproductive organs, then you could call anyone a 'woman' simply by how they want to identify. It's only because of procreation that man and woman exist with different bodies. That's the only reason nature created this difference between both sexes. So it would be better to call this a same gender relationship between opposite sexes instead of a same sex relationship. Actually, current prevalent ideas about transgender make any discussion about sexual orientation pointless, because sexual orientation is not based on which gender you are attracted to, but the biological sex, the male or female anatomy.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
The main arguments put forth for legal recognition of same sex marriage are, equality, fairness, non discrimination etc. Can these same arguments be used by polygamists (any number or combination) or incestuous people to claim recognition for their unions?
I think you are absolutely correct about that. It's the elephant in the room. Supporters of same sex marriage have created a definition of marriage which makes it impossible to have a solid argument against polyamorous or incestuous marriages.
Why should we give the same form of recognition to different types of relationship? That should only be the case if the difference between those relationships is not important. But on a sexual level, there's a very clear difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality as the latter has also importance for society. A man and a woman should be held responsible for the children they have and without children there's no futur. And the fact that infertile opposite sex couples are allowed to get married is only because it's the same type of relationship. But infertile incestuous couples still aren't allowed to get married, exactly because fertile incestuous couples can't get married.
-4 ( +0 / -4 )
Identifying as someone or something doesn't make it true. If you want to respect women, you shouldn't tell them that someone who only identifies as a woman, is a real woman. I would never want to send my children to a school which accepts current thinking about transgenders, as if all that matters is what you feel and what you want.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
"All individuals are granted the freedom to decide whether they marry as well as who and when they wed". This is a misleading statement when it claims to refer to legal recognition of marriage. People can have a private marriage ceremony in any way they want (siblings, multiple partners, same sex, with an animal or a tree …) but that doesn't mean that the law has to recognize such 'relationships' as marriages. There's no equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality because our existence as male - female defines us as a heterosexual species. To think that recognizing heterosexual relationships as legal marriages could automatically create a right to legally marry someone of the same sex, completely obscures the reason why heterosexuality deserves such formal recognition.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Posted in: Street show