Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

Marriage is a social/religious/legal structure, and has no basis in biology or any kind of science, save maybe social sciences. Your argument falls apart there just as easily as any religious based argument saying it can only be a certain way. The issue of procreation is separate from marriage. Marriage in any form is not required for procreation, nor can procreation be stopped due to a lack of marriage. The two things are independent of each other. And for that matter legal marriage, and even most religious marriage of the past, doesn't require love between the spouses.

 

Which holds no relevance here as procreation is not related to marriage, except by personal attachment at best.

It is not an apple in principle but an apple in actuality. The closest you might be able to apply that logic is by saying that applesauce is in principle an apple.

Exact. Which is why a same sex marriage is as much a marriage as an opposite sex marriage.

The problem here is that you are conflating several different things together here. Homosexuals can procreate, even in principle since the orientation is only about sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is not needed to procreate, just as marriage is not needed to procreate. A homosexual man and a homosexual woman can have sex and procreate. Now this is where you will most likely want to make an argument about how they cannot procreate within a same sex marriage, or with the one they are attracted to/love. But that argument is a red herring since these are not necessary for procreation.

 

They are both marriages.
Lying about legal status that is easily looked up just makes your point look pathetic.

That is your opinion which is not backed up by reality.

Statistically, you are wrong.

Indeed

The law is irrelevant to a legal contract?
No wonder no one takes these positions seriously — they are a joke.

Yes, caused by bigots, authoritarians and narcissists.

Too bad y’all didn’t do that. Clean your own house before you worry about others.

Bisexual people exist, they do bring children into same sex unions. You cannot steal what has been thrown away.

Then don’t bring them up — marriage is not a scientific argument, it is a legal one in the US.

Again, your opinion is wholly irrelevant.

You are not discussing legal principle I agree, I am. Who are you to believe you get to define what the limits of a conversation are (especially seeing that we are literally discussing a legal civil institution)? Probably the same person that believes they get to tell adults what legal contracts they can and cannot sign.

 

Nope, they are both intertwined. To separate them is to reduce the institution of marriage to complete and utter irrelevancy. IOW, marriage (under such a view) is no longer needed.

Never said that it was.

Never said that it could be.

They are intertwined. To separate procreation from marriage is to render marriage completely irrelevant as an institution.

That makes for a very unhealthy and unfruitful marriage.

 

Your point? Ishmael was still considered the son of Sarah even though it was her maid that gave birth to him.

 

The only reason that marriage has existed in society is to regulate the social obligations/responsibilities attendant upon procreation. To remove procreation from the essence of marriage is to render marriage completely irrelevant, as you have now removed the necessity for the institution.

It is both. "In principle" means 'relating to the definition of'. Does anybody know what "in principle" means? I'm beginning to wonder.....

This works as well. Relating to the definition of an apple, an apple that has been crushed up into sauce is still an apple. Relating to the definition of an apple, an apple that has a worm in it is still an apple.

WRONG. ALL same sex couples are INCAPABLE OF PROCREATING, even in principle. ALL heterosexual couples are capable of procreating in principle, even if some of them have extenuating circumstances which bar them from doing so in actuality. --- This is why marriage is strictly between a man and a woman, as only a man and a woman can procreate. Sperm from a male and egg from a female are required. Male and female.

No I'm not.

I'm talking about couples, not individual persons. Have you even read what I've been saying? Homosexual relations cannot yield a child. Heterosexual relations CAN.

Nobody said that sexual attraction was necessary, nor did anybody say that marriage is required for procreation.

Correct. MAN and WOMAN. That's the whole point.

Correct. They can't. That's the whole point.

A man and a woman are required for procreation. It is on that basis that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman, as the purpose of marriage is to provide for the regulation of the social obligations/responsibilities attendant upon procreation. To remove procreation from marriage (changing its definition) is to render the institution of marriage completely irrelevant... no longer needed.

 

There is no human race without man AND woman. There is no procreation without man AND woman. The purpose of marriage is to regulate the social obligations/responsibilities attendant upon procreation. -- This requires a man and a woman.

Ishmael is the son of Abraham and Hagar, not Abraham and Sarah.

 

RAAA responses have been ignored, as they've already been addressed.

ALL people are sinners, not just bigots, authoritarians, and narcissists. ALL people have contributed to the fallen world being fallen.

I have not done any of that. I am not those people, dude. I am not responsible for their actions.

Nope. Same sex unions cannot have children (biologically speaking).

If it hadn't been thrown away, there would be nothing to steal to begin with... They are only able to be foster parents because some heterosexual couples DO throw children away. Without that, it would be impossible for same sex couples to even FOSTER children, let alone procreate and have children of their own. --- They can only steal from the fruits of a man and a woman in order to pretend to have their own children via fostering them.

 

Such a interesting but sad debate strategy.

I would as you to kindly stop bringing your made up religious beliefs into the discussion on legal rights but I know it is impossible so I will abstain.

Until y’all clean up your own affairs, same sex couples can rightly ignore your issues.

They do not have to have them together to bring them into their marriage. Fascinating you didn’t know this.

Again, it is impossible to steal something that has been thrown away.

I would say I am going to do like you and pathetically edit down posts when you lie or regurgitate your positions but I would have to delete your entire post.


Same sex marriages are marriage and it is a legal construct in the United States.

 

Procreation is irrelevant to marriage both in principle and per legal precedent. The definition of marriage is a recognized union of two people. Procreation do not exist in any definition readily available.

People have access to dictionaries, a person of integrity would not to try and make up definitions when they can be so easily seen.

 

That is your error, and at best your opinion. One that is nowhere near universal. How relevant or irrelevant marriage is based on procreation is going to be subjective. You cannot make that aspect anything approaching objective. Marriage is just as much about stable households, with or without children, to many people, as much as it is about procreation to others. This is even more so with regards to legal marriage. The term marriage is not limited to any one belief's, religion's, society's or country's definition of it.

Your opinion, not an objective fact. My marriage to both my wives and my husband are very relevant to me and them, and to most of our friends and families.

And yet that was the model for marriage for centuries, millennium even. Marriage was more about alliances and wealth, especially for the upper classes, but even for the lower classes, it was about property and such, and not about love.

 

You've not proven that marriage is only about the procreation. I will grant that there can be religions and societies that espouse such, but that doesn't make it objectively so.

Which has noting to do with marriage. It is something that can and is often found within marriage, but procreation is not the purpose of marriage.

This is you contradicting yourself. If procreation even in principle is the purpose of marriage then procreation needs to happen in marriage.

You are historically incorrect. Marriage has been many things and in many combinations for many purposes over the history of man. If anything, it is you who are changing the definition by trying to limit it to only one thing and purpose.

 

This is actually inaccurate. As I have noted, marriage across history and including modern day, has many different forms and definitions. For some cultures, religions, and even legal systems, procreation is indeed a part of marriage. The OP doesn't limit us to any one context of marriage. So the principle of there is no one definition to exclude SSM also means that there is no one definition to exclude procreation from marriage as well. If the OP wanted to limit the discussion to US law or to Spanish law or whatever, then he should have mentioned it.

 

I was speaking of US law due to both myself and the other poster being American and PF largely being American users but you are correct. There are also cultures that have child marriage or allow individuals to marry deceased persons. Forced and arranged marriages are also, unfortunately, pretty common.

The poster however doesn't want to allow any law into the discussion which is a strange new twist.

 

And there's 96% of the population to procreate. However marriage, in both the Bible and secular, is not only about procreation. In fact procreation may not be a possibility.

Not according to the customs of the time.

 

If marriage is only for procreation, then why are infertile couples allowed to marry?

 

the institution of marriage has always been civil that's why it involves court and witnesses.

It was never about forming a wholesome home for a child because you wouldn't need a government contract to do that. You could practice monogamy you could share assets you could raise children as a couple without ever getting married so that's not what the institution is for.

In the beginning the only thing it really ever had to do with children was paternity. When a father died the oldest son would inherit the estate. If the father had never married that would mean the court would inherit the estate.

Beyond that any religious or personal meaning you place on marriage is strictly yours and has nothing to do with the institution.

The concept of the nuclear family was fabricated in the very early 20th century. The notion that a child does better in the nuclear family could be that society places on the pedestal the concept of a nuclear family. Meaning this concept could be creating problems with single-parent households or other lifestyles.


As far as procreation goes the only component of it that has anything to do with marriage is assumed paternity.

 

The rabbit hole goes deeper than that. Why are married men allowed to get vasectomies and still remain married why are married females allowed to have abortions and still stay married. Why are heterosexual couples allowed to use prophylactics of any kind.

Everybody is aware that there is a bonding component to sexual relations but they conveniently forget about that with regards to unconventional couples.

 

Marriage is snot needed to procreate. Many singles have children without getting married. Many Of these don't want a long term relationship. The family constellation has changed a lot in the last fifty years. Married couples don't always have kids. A marriage is between two people. Our social norms have changed greatly. The law is catching up.........but the religious groups remain stubbornly fixed in what they believe is tradition. If gay couples want to marry.......why shouldn't they??.........They should have the same rights as anyone else. The gay population have been subjected to enough prejudicial attitude for too long.

 

I have already addressed this counterpoint numerous times.

Hint: the words "in principle" (meaning, 'relating to the definition of') are very important words. If you remove them, then you come to erroneous conclusions such as this one...

 

Never claimed that it was. A man and a woman (whether married or not) is what is needed to procreate.

Yup, and they are acting very irresponsibly in such cases. No wonder we have so many abortions, foster children, and children in single parent households that cannot adequately provide for them!

See above.

Irrelevant to the definition of marriage.

WRONG. Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is because procreation in principle is always possible between a man and a woman, and it is that possibility that gave rise to the institution of marriage as a matter of law. Outside of this framework (iow, where procreation is in principle impossible), marriage is completely and utterly irrelevant (not needed).

Irrelevant.

A gay person can enter into a marriage all they want; nobody is stopping him/her from marrying. However, a union between two men or two women is NOT a marriage; it is instead nothing more than a close friendship (as procreation in principle is impossible, same with a close friendship). It is procreation in principle (the possibility of being fruitful and bringing new human life into the world) that separates a marriage from a close friendship and is what gives marriage its meaning.

They have the same rights as anyone else. They can enter into a marriage if they so choose to, just as anyone else can do. However, two men and two women does not and cannot result in a marriage.

 

If it's "in principle" then it shouldn't matter if they're same sex or not as long as they they produce children.

 

Two fertile humans of opposite sex is what is needed. The fertility part is needed just as much as the opposite sex part.

Depends on the culture, and if you go back far enough, I think it may also have something to do with the ownership of women, sold from their fathers to their new owners, their husbands.

 

People viewing this topic should really consider this observation:
I have lived in the culture for 67 years and have been observing it's changes. My first reminisces of Marriage was that it was a sanctified institution between 1 man and 1 women and a Covenant between those two for life. That Covenant was mainly modeled after the Christian Faith and what is was designed to be. Due to the secularization of our culture, Marriage has lost it's importance. Talking to young people today, many have children and out of curiosity, I ask, "how long have you been married ?" Many will respond without hesitation, "oh I'm not married". So in our culture, Marriage is not important, that is, unless you happen to be gay. This is pretty eye opening as well as tragic.

My final observation would be this: Starting on the slippery slope, the culture took a real turn. Divorce became easier, more common, then widely accepted, even sanctified by the culture. It was done to the point generations now seldom even see the purpose of Marriage. Now in order to drive a stake in the heart of the original intent of Marriage, it is being redefined and mocked by those that want to call "gay relationships" marriage. I just find it sort of tragically funny that they couldn't find a "new name" for their union. It almost seems that the original intent has been under attack. I do recognize though, a great many of us still do recognize the faith based definition of marriage, though it is not embraced by the culture.

 

If it's in principle (it is), then it MUST matter if they're same sex or not (as same sex cannot procreate in principle, while opposite sex can procreate in principle).

Here, "in principle" is relating to the definition of the word 'procreate'. Thus, a literal or actualized production of children is not a requirement, but rather the possession of the biological ability to produce children.

In order to have a marriage, a possession of the biological ability to produce children must be present (man and woman)...