How many believe the potential for procreation should be a marriage requirement?

Should the potential for a couple to procreate be a requirement for marriage of said couple? By marriage I am referring to the issuance of government marriage licenses.

 

I chose "other"... because:

...is not completely true.

The potential to procreate does make a difference to certain individual "couples"; but not necessarily for all who would marry.

 

govt has no business being involved in any marriage.

We are individuals and that is where govt must end. I did not get married because I could check off "married filing joint" on my tax return. Get govt out of the bedroom and we'll all be better for it.

 

one of our more prolific anti-gay rights posters often uses "potential for procreation" as his argument against same-sex marriage....


right up to when he's asked "Okay then. So you'd restrict women who have had a hysterectomy from being able to get married to a man, right?"....then suddenly he shifts his argument away from "potential for procreation" and starts in with some new arguments.....

until those arguments peter out, then he goes back to "potential for procreation"....the question asked again...and the whole circle starts all over again.

Thus showing "potential for procreation" is just a lame excuse...for opposing gay rights and not a serious argument that "marriage is about procreation or the potential for procreation and should be restricted from gay couples therefore."

 

Civil contracts, such as marriage, are absolutely the government's business. Civil contracts are LEGAL agreements, meaning that LAWS are involved to protect both parties involved. Laws and contracts are why we have government in the first place! Do you not understand the purpose of government?

 

interesting, have you never entered into a contract with another person or a corporation? I can jointly own property, a business, an automobile etc etc etc.

I can have a living will, assign power of atty etc etc.

I do not support any more govt intrusion into bedrooms. If we allow them to do that for gay sex then incest sex must also be included and later any other deviant sexual behavior. We can't stop at heterosexual sex any more than at unrelated homosexual sex.

Pandora's Box needs to be slammed tight and get govt back to addressing individuals.

 

Yes, and government is involved in all of those. Those are all legal arrangements. Who do you think enforces those agreements? The government. I'm beginning to see that a lot of people here don't even know what the function of government is.

 

hold onto your hat because the spin has begun

the govt does not need to be involved in marriage. They should only be focused on individuals. All contracts can be entered into by multiple parties and marriage is not needed for any of them. There are methods for accomplishing all of it.

stop the silliness about govt.: It does not belong in my bedroom with my wife any more than it belongs in your bedroom with your boyfriend

 

Bottom line- is marriage a civil legal contract or not?

 

govt should not be involved. That is my position and to expand the control of govt to even more people simply exacerbates the problem rather than fixes it.

I am consistent in my stance and thus why I don't support sex doll marriage, incest marriage, plumbers with butt crack marriage, gay marriage, polygamy etc etc etc.

My preference, flat rate income tax. If you and your lover want to express your love then go to a church or any other group and vow your love.

If you want to buy a home, then draft a JTWROS contract. A single person should not be treated differently by the govt than a married one. Marriage should be a cultural thing, not governmental thing.

 

Just curious- are you married and do you have a civil marriage license? Because according to you, you're against that, so why would you do it? Obviously, no one is forcing you.

BTW- how long have you been on your anti-civil marriage crusade? Was it before or after same sex couples started insisting on being treated equally under the law? Let's just call this what it is- you don't like gay people, and you want to make sure that we are not treated equally under the law. Just say it for a change.

 

Marriage is an anachronistic institution and should be abolished. If people want to negotiate and sign civil agreements, at least they know what they're getting into.

 

before

you are so full of bull and for some reason believe that anyone who does not support your OPINION must hate you because you sleep with other men.

Here's a clue: we don't care who shares your bed with you. You will probably find that the problem most people have with you is your statist/leftist ideology.

I do not support affirmative action either. I have sold to and purchased from all walks of life. I will never understand why you must be a "gay" male instead of just a male.

I began to question the disparity between single people and married people many years ago when I tried to get insurance to allow a single employee to purchase the family plan and add his brother to it. His brother was in college and their folks were dead. My employee and I both figured it could be done as long as the premium increase was paid. We were sadly mistaken.

The above example isn't a gay issue but you are so myopic with me me me me that you can't see reality.

 

Your employee and his brother have nothing to do with the institution of marriage. That is completely unrelated.

What in the hell is "statist" about marriage law? WTF? You right wingers never cease to amaze me. Anything you don't like you automatically label "statist" or "leftist". Unless of course, it's a law you like. You never answered my question- are you married and do you have a civil marriage license?

And I would like nothing more than just to be considered a "male". When the law and society stops discriminating against people like me for being what we are, then it'll be a lot easier to be just that. I'm seeing reality just fine.

 

I clicked "other" because I don't feel the government needs to be in our bedrooms.

 

Contracts only involve the government when one or more parties wish them too. You can have a contract with no government involvement at all.

 

That is why I emphasized that I was referring to marriage licenses. As far as what individuals couples think, your point is understood, but as far as to who gets a license from the government, it doesn't really apply.

 

This prolific anti-marriage equality poster is full of crap and then some. While I will give him a slight amount of credit for coming up with a halfways intelligent argument(in that it's not full blown obviously homophobic even if that is 100% the underlying basis), his argument has more holes than 30 golf courses and is about as consistent as a jukebox on random. When faced with a myriad of situations that undercut his argument, he doubles down and just repeats himself, never addressing your points, and taking you back on another tour of circularlogicsville.

I've found this is the standard for the anti-marriage equality crowd. Most won't come out and plainly say they just don't like gay people so they try to use arguments, but those arguments fail each and every time because "eeeewww" is not a logical argument no matter where you are.

It's why they are losing and badly. "eeeewww" does not convince people that you are correct. "eeeeewww" does not win over younger voters who, even asleep, can see the BS flowing freely from the mouths and fingers of those people.

So, I expect more gay bashing threads as the years go by. It's a coping mechanism, and for some, the only way they'll get an audience interested in their hate.

 

There is a point to be made. The marriage license is not simply a contract, it is a license. Government gets to define who gets the license, regardless of the various minorities in society, including gays. Marriage is a private social relationship--why should people have to ask for government permission? Government courts of course exist in the enforcement of contracts, but that was not the point.

I support marriage equality because if the government is going to issue special privileges to couples who are married, it needs to do so equally for everyone. But the best solution is to get rid of the marriage license altogether. Leave it to individuals, churches, or any other type of organization to define marriage contracts how they see fit. Let them call it what they want. There doesn't need to be anything "legally official" about it. Do some crazy Christians have a problem with gay marriage? Fine, who cares. Gay couples can still have their own marriage contracts, and gay churches can still marry them. It removes the problem. Nobody has to accept anyone's definition, but by the same token nobody can use the law to discriminate and make certain marriages less valid. They would all operate under basic contract law.

And I say this being gay myself, often in agreement with you, so please do not call me some bigot or rightist.

 

Doesn't seem to be a very good/clear survey.

 

How so?

 

I'm not sure. Even so, I'll stick with the response of "other".

 

Oh really? And who will enforce the terms of said contract- Santa Claus?

 

The government enforces contracts, but it does not have to issue them. That was the point.

 

Ans that's my point. Contracts are useless with absolutely no government involvement. What's the point of having a contract if there is nothing to enforce it?