A Simple Question for Those Are Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

Well by this argument then only those who are biological parents need to be encouraged to marry. Because a step mother or step father is not obligated to care for the child. Thus by the logic presented there is no state interest in someone with a child being allowed to marry anyone other than the biological counterpart?

Ah but wait! Now with the artificial insemination techniques available, we can insert the DNA of one woman into a sperm and have it combine with the DNA of the other woman's egg. These two women are now the biological parents. So by your logic they should be encouraged to marry. And since we don't know who will choose to follow this path, again by your logic, we need to allow all same sexed people to marry if they so choose.

 

First off, not any more. There are plenty more options available today. Secondly, the union that you speak of is irrelevant of the legal state of marriage. The legal state of marriage does nothing to ensure that the biological fulfill their obligations to see to the well being of the child. Additionally, the law does not recognize the biological state of the husband. He is typically by law recognized as the father, even if he is later shown to be not the biological father. Thus there is still no reasons to not allow same sexed couples to enter into the legal state of marriage.Furthermore, even the biological parents can give up or lose their obligations to provide for their offspring. It is not uncommon for a parent to give up all their rights and obligations to a child and a step parent to assume them through adoption. I do not deny the obligation of a parent, biological or not, to a child, until that child is an adult themselves. But that obligation does not require a legal marriage to occur.

I for one, have never had a problem for all legal unions to be called by a name other than marriage. Once that is out of the way, then the various religions and non religious can argue over whether or not what they have is a marriage. Ultimately this is a matter of law. The name of the legal institution that bestows the legal rights, benefits and obligations of what we currently call "marriage", can be called "freedom flights" and those who have it called "flighted". It doesn't matter. It only matters that it is available to all citizens unless there can be shown a legitimate interest in excluding certain demographics

 

Deleted due to duplication

 

Then quite pulling the same one out again and again.

 

That's an argument for removing those laws, not prohibiting same sexed people from the same legal institution that opposite sexed people can enter into. Which violates the 14th Amendment.

 

Not true. It happens all the time. It's just not legal. Which of course is what we are talking about, except for those who want to talk about issues outside of what a legal marriage is for.

 

Does Brazil's law require consent? To be honest, in some places, the woman's consent is not legally required. That said, we are not talking about Brazilian law. We are discussing US law.

 

That is incorrect. Marriage as a legal institution is what we are indeed talking about, although many others are trying to conflate other types of marriages with the legal one. Marriage is also a religious institution, and has styles and definitions as varied as the religions themselves. Additionally, marriage is a social institution, recognized and practiced by even those without any religion of their own. One can be engaged in multiple forms simultaneously, and no form requires the other forms to be legitimate. I can get married before the state, but no given religious institution has to recognize it. Similarly, I can be married before God in a church, but the state is not required to recognize it. Do not mistake this for where the state allows for a clergy member to sign the legal paperwork.

 

Bestiality is illegal.
Although, people like you often do talk about Bestiality

 

The 'fact' I was pointing out is that two members of the the same sex cannot produce a child, nothing more.

What we are talking about is simply a binding contract between two adults. Call it something that has no gender based words applicable regardless of it being entered into by two adults of the same or different genders and the problem, for all practical purposes, should/would be resolved.

 

Yes I am. Why don't you address my actual arguments instead of constantly crafting strawmen to chase after

No one claimed it did.

Pretty good. Can see it in whites higher rates of marriage and lower rates of single motherhood when compared to the blacks lower rate of marriage and higher rates of single motherhood and absent or unknown fathers.

I didn't address it because the overwhelming majority of children with single parents are with single mothers.

 

yes, I'm sure it was a lovely ceremony. However, that woman was not married to the ferris wheel.

Stop playing this moronic game. You are better than that.

 

I said he married his horse. Didn't say he was having sex with his horse.

 

marriage is a legal institution. You are not "married" if the law does not recognize it.

 

what is wrong with you? the post he was responding to literally discussed a man marrying a horse.

stop attacking people

 

Marrying a horse which is not bestiality, as opposed to having sex with his horse which would be bestiality. Get the same run for refuge in a strawman whenever I suggest closely related marriages as a suggestion that they engage in incest.

 

I'm not playing any game, just pointing out that you don't have the right to define marriage. Maybe you can explain to me why you have that authority?

Jodi Rose, Australian Artist, Marries 600-Year-Old French Bridge Le Pont du Diable

 

I'm not defining it. I giving you the definition of marriage. It is a legal institution.

strawman

 

I am not attacking anyone Moderator Ron.

Just pointing out that Bestiality is illegal so Marriage between humans and beasts would be illegal to consumate.

You on the other hand are mad at me and getting revenge.

 

Civil unions that included same sex couples were attempted in several states before the push for marriage equality. The religious groups were against ANY same sex union. The word “marriage” is not the issue here, it is religious groups who have held power for way to long being told they do not get to define legal institutions any longer.

 

The legal definition, which is what we are discussing, states marriage is between 2 unrelated adults.

 

No he isn’t

 

Consummation of marriage became irrelevant when marriage was extended to gays who cannot consummate the relationship

 

Marriages limitation in the law to men and women was never based upon religion and was always based upon biology. From BC Roman Law before Christianity existed-

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
pater semper incertus est ("The father is always uncertain")
pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant ("the father is he to whom marriage points")

Because of biology, not religion.

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;....

Again, biology, not religion.

 

Don't care. Heterosexual couples have been considered legally married despite not having "consummated" the marriage for decades. Military personnel shipped out quickly have had the ceremony performed and license issued. The state considered them married. This was the case long before gay marriage.