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

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by ProgressivePatriot, Nov 17, 2017.

  1. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Revealing that you run to the portion of your post I DIDNT quote. The part I DID QUOTE,

    "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."

    You know, the topic of discussion, the "legal institutions" which presumably includes marriage. AND religious organizations don't have the ability to "block" such "legal instituions".

    ACTUALLY my assertion was that marriages limitation to men and women was because of biology and even pointed to several other limitations of marriage that were in fact based upon religion. But arguments I have not made are your favorite arguments to refute.
     
  2. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,824
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I see that’s the problem, see the OP is about same sex marriage and reasons why posters are against it. Your argument is apparently “cause that’s the way it has always been”. Not the strongest argument I will admit, or even accurate, but you are entitled to your own opinions, even if they are not legal arguments.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2018
  3. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,824
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which was in response to Religious organizations blocking same sex civil unions. Just because you don’t quote something or don’t feel like responding to it and editing it out does not mean you get to alter the position made.

    Agian, marriage was not limited to man and women exclusively, or are you trying to “not quote” the last few pages and pretend they didn’t exist.
     
  4. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope, the argument is that marriages limitation to men and women was always based upon biology, only women give birth and only the man who caused her to do so is held responsible for providing and caring for the child. Gay marriage was mandated on the false claim that marriages limitation to men and women was instead based upon an intent to "disparage and injure" homosexuals.
     
  5. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The fact is, this is not true anymore. If you want to throw a lot of caveats in such as natural birth or through sex only, sure, it's now true. But alternative means of having children are way more common and great strides are being made, albeit expensive currently, into methods where the genetic codes of two same sexed parents can be used to produce an offspring.

    Again I agree that as long as the legal institution is one and the same regardless of who enters into it, the name does not matter. But the reality that anti SSM people keep wanting to ignore is that marriage has had all kinds of combinations of individuals throughout history and it is not only about one man/one woman.
     
  6. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why don't you lay out specifically what you think this strawman I am creating is. Because I am addressing directly your argument that marriage is for the improved well being of children. If that is not your point, then you are doing a piss poor job of presenting it, such that several of us are reading your point the same as I.

    Then as such, if any given legal institution is enacted it must be made available to all citizens.

    And yet the single act of encouraging heterosexual marriage is still bringing that result. Obviously, who is encouraged to marry is not the source of the problem. Furthermore, the legal status of marriage has been shown not to be the best situation for the well being of children per se. Mind you it is the most common place where such is found, but it is not a necessity. Many parents today are living together without the legal bond between them, raising their children. Even among those who are not there are plenty where both parents are working together on the raising of their children, from which the children are doing just as well as those with both parents in the house. It's not about the parents living together, but working together and both taking responsibility for their child. The law obligates both parents to begin with. However, being married does not guarantee that a parent will actually attend to the well being of the child. There are plenty of examples of one or both married parents not attending to the well being of their children. So what we are looking at is a correlation/causation fallacy. While those who are more likely to attend to the well being of their children are also more likely to marry each other, one is not required for the other.

    And even after all that, you still have not given a reason why same sexed couple should not be allowed the legal institution of marriage. All you have shown is how marriage can (not automatically does) increase the well being of any children in the household. But what is reality is that step parents, more often than not, increase the well being of any children in the household, regardless of the gender of the step parent compared to that of the parent.

    And here is your strawman. First off, whether or not the single parent is a mom or dad is irrelevant. Your biases aside, the argument being made to you is that a parent with a child marrying another person other than the child's opposite parent, is not in a single parent home. Regardless of whether or not the step parent is of the same or opposite gender of the parent, they have no legal obligation to the step child, which has been one of your major arguments. But instead of arguing against step parent homes you have only argued against same sexed couple homes, citing that the parent is a single mom and thus the child is more likely to have lower well being. If a same sexed step parent is going to make the parent a single parent, then so too will an opposite sexed parent.
     
  7. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Marriage was a religious and social institution long before the government started regulating and encoding it into law. Yes there were laws dealing with people who were married, but nothing about having to go though government paperwork to establish the legal status. For the purposes of law today, in order to obtain the rights and privileges encoded into law, yes, you do indeed have to have that legal paperwork. That is way it is called a legal marriage. It does nothing to establish or prevent the social and/or religious institution of marriage. Are you claiming that any marriage that occurred before the advent of marriage licenses never actually were?
     
  8. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually that might depend upon how the law defines it, when discussing the legal implications. Technically, incest is only the having sex of blood related individuals within a certain close relations, usually one or two steps away, and not the marrying of them. However, by law, incest is defined, depending upon the state, as two individuals within one or two steps, related through blood or law (meaning even adopted or step), who either marry or have sex. Again there is a lot of variation between states, so I made it rather general.
     
  9. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is no legal requirement for a marriage to be consumated. Thus, (other laws aside) there is not requirement for one to have sex with the animal in order to marry it. The consummation of a marriage in terms of law would be a strawman, albeit, in this case, unintentional.
     
  10. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe you need to provide a definition of consummation for us. Last I knew it was having sex, which homosexuals of both genders most certainly can do. Sex is not limited to PiV. This aside from the fact that there is no legal requirement for consummation.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2018
  11. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    https://www.indifferentlanguages.com/words/marriage
    So exactly how are words like "brak","avioliitto", "santuoka", and 'sib yuav", just to name a few, derviced from "mater"? These are all words that mean marriage. Or do those words not matter? Words come from a lot of sources across many languages. Marriage is an institution, and the word associated with it varies. It is the institution that is more relevant than any one given word. The use of the word source is a red herring.
     
  12. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Given that time range, has included same sex marriages, polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages, ghost marriages and so much more. A majority of people entering into one given type of marriage does not invalidate or dismiss the existence of these other types of marriage.
     
  13. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is going right back to the argument that marriage is only for the purpose of having children, which on a legal level simply is not true. Having protections with in the legal context of marriage for any children produced is different from the overall purpose of marriage. On a legal basis, the ability or inability to have children is not a factor to who should or should not be allowed to enter into the legal institution.
     
  14. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,824
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which is false
    Irrelivant
    Which is false, there are numerous instances where the biological father is not liable
    There is no reason to deny same sex couples the protections and benifits of marriage which is why you never directly address it.
     
  15. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you aware of a child having been produced from two persons of the same sex? I think it would have resulted in quite a news story.


    I'm aware of same sex relations having existed long ago but were they called marriages?
     
  16. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It did.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...6/Sperm-cells-created-from-female-embryo.html

    I also remember reading an article somewhere (in a hard copy magazine) about a process where they remove the DNA from a sperm and add the DNA from one female's egg, and then use that to fertilize the egg of another female. At the time of the article, they were still doing it on animals, and it was a few years ago. But it is quite conceivable that it is doable with humans. Now mind you I am not claiming that this is common place right now or inexpensive. But like IVF and other procedures, the costs of which are dropping rapidly, the cost will become affordable. And with artificial womb technology being explored, many more choices are and will be available for homosexual couples, both men and women.

    Yes they were. And they were also denied by other cultures as well. The early Catholic church once ruled that if a couple were not married under their church, they would not consider them married. So the whole concept of one group telling another group that what they have isn't the definition of marriage is probably as old as the institution itself.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2018
  17. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "...a remarkable breakthrough that suggests it may be possible for lesbian couples to have their own biological children."
    "coaxed male bone marrow cells to develop into primitive sperm cells have now repeated the feat with female embryonic stem cells."
    "It raises the possibility of lesbian couples one day having children"
    My question asked "Are you aware of a child having been produced from two persons of the same sex? I think it would have resulted in quite a news story.

    I've yet to see any historical evidence being presented. At best it would appear the word marriage and other supportive words to have been created as a recognition of nature.
     
  18. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Human offspring, no. I mentioned the one that was using nucleus transfer. That should be ready soon, I would believe. However my point was not that it is viable now but that it is on it's way and that these are going to be out there. If we want to be more accurate, then I can say, your assertion is not true for much longer.

    Of course none of the issues on who a child is created from biologically has anything to do with the legal state of marriage, since child bearing is not a requirement of legal marriage.

    I am going to direct you to the book Committed by Elizabeth Gilbert, author of Eat, Pray, Love. In her book she details out several different types of marriages across the world and time. All of them being marriages. Also see the thread on the Creation of Monogamy on this forum. The link there notes other types of marriages, including polyandry. I am getting ready to head off to work as of this posting. If I get time tonight I'll see if I can find more sources. However, like most who oppose anything other than one man one woman, you will probably dismiss them.
     
  19. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then why did they only expand marriage to include homosexuals, without extending it to all who are currently prohibited by law from marrying? Because equality wasn't the goal. Winning more "respect and dignity" for homosexuals is the goal.
     
  20. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Already did. Here it is again.

    consummation of marriage

    Also found in: Dictionary, Wikipedia.
    Related to consummation of marriage: consummate
    consummation of marriage
    full sexual intercourse between married persons after their marriage by the insertion of the penis into the vagina. Inability to consummate because of impotence or refusal to consummate is a ground for nullity of the marriage.
    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consummation+of+marriage
     
  21. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Physical impossibility for a man to be related by blood to his horse
     
  22. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only a husband is obligated by marriage to provide and care for any child that his wife gives birth to.
     
  23. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Given that science has figured out how to transfer DNA from egg to sperm or vice versa, but has yet to discover how to make two dissimilar species produce offspring, it actually does NOT logically follow that you could produce a child with your dog.
     
  24. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Like most thing dealing with the court system, only that which is challanged can be ruled upon. The courts are not empowered to go beyond the scope of what is challenged. That is why SSM was not made legal when interracial marriage was, and why incest marriage didn't get made legal. Someone would have to challenge the incest prohibition separately for that to occur. That one would probably happen over several steps with non blood related legal connections being the first to get over turned (e.g. Greg and Marsha Brady being allowed to.marry). As to age, that prohibition is drafted along the ability to give informed consent. That is already handled in the law with emancipation of a minor. So if an 8 year old can show enough maturity as to convince a judge to emancipate then to legal adult status, then the 8 year old would legally be allowed to marry. I don't for see it happening, but that is the structure of the law.
     
  25. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah saw that post after I had responded. However, while failure to do so may be grounds for nullification, such would only happen at the behest of one or both of the individuals within that marriage license. Nowhere in the law is there a requirement that a marriage be consummated lest the government nullify the marriage against the will of the couple. Additionally, just at the marriage laws are changing/have changed for the allowance of SSM, so too will that legal definition change.
     

Share This Page