Why can't we have a childless gay marriage?

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by AltLightPride, Aug 22, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Men and women still frequently produce children. So it's nothing.

    Further they declared that the ban on States recognizing same-sex marriage disparaged homosexual couples. And they were correct it was created to do specifically that. Two dudes getting married doesn't interfere at all with a man and a woman getting married and having kids.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2017
  2. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There was no ban of homosexuals. You wont find ANY marriage law in the past that as much as mentions sexual orientation. That was a judicial fiction created so they could reach the decision they wanted.
    Was like arguing that marriages limitation to just one wife is discrimination against Mormons and Muslims who would rather marry several wives. Absurd.
     
  3. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll be sure to tell them you know better than they themselves what motivated them. Have to be pretty full of yourself to believe such nonsense.
     
  4. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one claimed otherwise.
     
  5. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So same-sex marriage did nothing to that.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  6. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,920
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You'll note that I said nothing specific about the individuals you claimed to know. I simply made an observation about the general homosexual community of the era. I even said as much, but you decided not to include that part in your quote and response. There would be, of course, other motivations, with simply the desire to have kids among them. But that motivation is more common today than it was back then.
     
  7. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    yeah Dixon has a notorious habit of removing your statement from context.
     
  8. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So it's nothing.

    Further they declared that the ban on States recognizing same-sex marriage disparaged homosexual couples. And they were correct it was created to do specifically that. Two dudes getting married doesn't interfere at all with a man and a woman getting married and having kids.

    I love how you dishonestly removed all the argument likely because you don't want to address it.
     
  9. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Homosexuals were banned from marriage.
     
  10. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,920
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The thing is, for legal purposes, it doesn't have to be about sexual orientation. Neither sex nor procreation is a requirement for legal marriage. I might want to get married to my male friend, towards whom I have no sexual attraction. Why? Maybe because we realize that we are not going to settle down with anyone else for a long time and we decide to form a household together, for all of the financial and emotional support that brings. Stable household units, with or without children, are a positive thing in society. The sex/gender of the members of a given unit are irrelevant.

    Ultimately, the issue is not discrimination against any one group per se'. It is about equal application of the law to all regardless of gender, orientation, race, etc.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2017
  11. Daggdag

    Daggdag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15,668
    Likes Received:
    1,957
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Except there is no evidence that being raised by a gay couple has any negative effect on the child at all.

    And if you think gays shouldn't be alloed to adopt for that reason, do you think it should be illegal for single hetrosexual parents to adopt as well?
     
  12. AltLightPride

    AltLightPride Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    1,215
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, society has decided : let's test it out. The responsibility is on the supporters.

    Yes. Abandoned children have it hard enough not knowing their real parents, I believe they have a right to a stable family.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2017
  13. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,920
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There are plenty of stable single parent homes, where they raise successful kids. Just because they are not the majority of single parent homes does not mean that we should deprive a child of a stable home. This is the whole purpose of the screening system for adoption. Mind you we could argue the effectiveness of the screening system, but that is the topic for another thread.
     
  14. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    SIngle parents are sometimes allowed to adopt children.

    IMHO, adoption should be decided on a case by case basis.
     
    Polydectes likes this.
  15. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    there has been gay people raising children for many years. It was never decided it isn't society's decision. I'm against big government involving themselves and such things.



    they do not have a right to a stable family. Are all alt-light people just big government democrats? Rights are negative and nature mostly. If a person had the right to a stable family and then the government would be beholden to make sure the family is stable. I don't want that kind of intrusion into our lives.

    If there's a question the government should very rarely ever be the answer. If you have a right to something no one can deny it to you not your parents not Society that even the forces of death.

    We're stable families are good and we should support that it is not a right. Rights as they are enumerated in the Constitution forbid the government from acting against them.

    Also a married couple that are the same sex is more stable then a couple that is not married.

    That was exactly the argument used to support same-sex marriage.
     
  16. AltLightPride

    AltLightPride Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    1,215
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because the government acting on the dogma that "gay couples are as good at raising children as straight couples and if you disagree that's illegal discrimination" isn't about the government involving itself in such things?


    I often find that gay marriage proponents share that belief. Gays have rights, but children don't. I find that disturbing.


    The issue of government size is irrelevant to Western nationalism so there's no consensus on that.

    Personally I believe that the issue of government size is completely irrelevant period. What's important is who's running the government, not its size. What's bad is authoritarian governments that restrict freedoms, that's it.

    For example, what do you make of France, which had a big socialist government for decades, and is now forced to adopt a small neoliberal government by the EU without leaving them a choice? It's not the big government that's restricting freedoms here, it actually never has, it's the small government types who want to bring it down against the will of the majority...

    For gay marriage, it's about the freedom of gays to adopt children versus the freedom of children to gave a good host family, and in both cases the government is having a say on that by allowing or disallowing gay marriage. So government size is not relevant to gay marriage.


    You're aware that adoption agencies are government-run or government contractors, right? So by saying this, are you saying that adoption agencies have no responsibility to check that the children get a decent host family? I mean, you're literally saying they have no responsibility to do their job correctly here...


    You're just saying "gay couples don't break up more than straight couples" here. But that's irrelevant to the question of raising children, which is the only real difference from civic unions, so how is that an argument for gay marriage at all?
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2017
  17. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm against the government pushing anything and I'm against Dogma. It's completely about government involving itself in things it has no business in. All 50 states 10 seconds from now could decide they no longer recognize marriage and the argument would be over. There really isn't a need for them to do so anymore since women have gained equality.




    children have the same rights that anyone else does aside from gun ownership and a few other things nobody has the right to a stable family. You're just lucky if you get one. So now I'm not saying the children don't have any rights way to twist my words.




    Well the bigger government gets the more control it has. So does it completely irrelevant if you value of Liberty.

    I'm sorry to break this to you but telling people they can't adopt children out to parents that you don't like and telling people they can't get married is the government restricting freedoms.

    I'm making nothing of France I know very little about their politics and I don't care.

    The Constitution was written to protect the people from the tyranny of the majority if you want to live in a majority ruled country and all means go do it this is a constitutional republic we are constitutionally ruled country

    that's assuming all families with gay parents are not good. That's the claim you'll have to prove. Get crackin

    unless you adopt a child through an agency and that case the government isn't that involved and the agency can adopt the kid out to whoever they choose you shouldn't be allowed to set the rules neither should the government.




    I'll let you go ahead and prove that. Lol.

    decent in whos standards by basic legal standards? Yeah that doesn't negate single parents

    I'm not sure what you're talking about. Adoption agencies are just there to find children that don't have homes homes.




    no not even close. I wonder if it hurt when you made that straw man. I'm saying to people that have committed to each other are probably more stable than two people that haven't. When sex is really irrelevant.

    I agree you're stupid straw man is irrelevant that's why it's not my argument. That's your brainchild I don't own it.

    My argument is that a gay couple that is legally married is more stable than one that is forbidden to be married.

    Never forget the way you tried to manipulate my argument into whatever that s*** was you made up focus on my words is a married couple more stable than an unmarried couple if yes why wouldn't that apply regardless of sex?
     
  18. AltLightPride

    AltLightPride Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    1,215
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you make unclear, misleading statements, and then cry strawman? That's not very honest.

    You're just playing on words between "having a stable relationship" and "providing a stable environment for children". Not the same thing.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2017
  19. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,920
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    To say that children, or anyone for that matter, does not have a right to something is not the same thing as saying that they have no rights. Your attempt at changing the point of the argument fails. And it is a very true statement. No one has a right to a stable family. They have a right to attempt to find or create one, but there is nothing that can guarantee such and this no right to one/

    Children do not have that as a freedom either, but just to be clear, that doesn't mean they don't possess other freedoms. Wouldn't want you twisting points again.

    First, no not all adoption agencies are government contractors, nor are all orphanages. They are government licensed and regulated, yes, but then so are all other businesses. So unless you are claiming that all businesses are government run or government contractors, you are wrong. As far as a "decent" home, how do you define that? Agencies have a responsibility to see that their wards are placed where they can be raised safely. Even safely can be open to interpretation. After all the whole argument of whether or not gays should be able to adopt is whether or not a same sex marriage home is decent or safe. Some believe them to be (or at least as much as straight homes in their possibility) and others not.

    You twisted words again. He said a married same sex couple versus an unmarried opposite sex couple. A married opposite sex couple is more stable than an unmarried opposite sex couple as well, at least according to the argument he is bringing. In my opinion, the stability of a household has nothing to do with a legal piece of paper. I know of many stable households, raising successful well rounded children, where that piece of government issued paper does not exist. Whether or not someone has bothered to go down to the courthouse and filled proper paperwork for a legal marriage will not affect how stable their household is.
     
    Polydectes likes this.
  20. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Such as?

    Okay. Prove that a homosexual couple cannot (by virtue of them being the same sex) provide a stable environment for children.

    Simple enough.
     
  21. AltLightPride

    AltLightPride Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    1,215
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The burden of proof is 100% on the people who have their beliefs written as law, not on the skeptics. You can't seize power and then avoid the responsibility that goes with it. Personally I'm perfectly fine with the "sit back and watch it fail" approach, since the responsibility for anything that goes wrong is purely on the advocates.

    Besides, this wasn't the point of the thread. The point of the thread was to see if there was a compromise possible with the pro gay marriage crowd by having a gay marriage without the possibility of adoption. The answer was a clear NO, they'll defend adoption to their dying breaths. So the thread is over as far as I'm concerned.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2017
  22. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I know of no law stating the stability for children of homosexuals or heterosexuals.

    no idea what you're talking about. No idea who seized power it's almost like you're talking about a coup.
    I have a hard time understanding what could go wrong is homosexuals do what they always done throughout all time and the state recognizes it.

    There was never any laws prohibiting singles are gay couples from adopting children no law says you have to be married except in Utah.

    It wouldn't be compromising it would be giving up something for nothing. So a bunch of Bible Thumpers can feel warm and snuggly. If you said you can get married but no more parades that would have been acceptable or you can get married but no for sitting at on businesses that also would be a compromise.

    It's compromise I reject. Imagine if we were talking 60 years ago black people can marry white people but they can't have kids. Is that a compromise?
     
  23. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is why I want us to reach a technological stage where babies are grown and born outside the mother in a womb chamber and freeing human from having children using a live womb and even better genetic engineering and cloning to get away from needing human parents all together then we can free humans from reproduction and make the unnatural part of using our science and engineering to be the norm. It will end this kind of original poster backward thinking.
     
  24. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just like the book by Aldous Huxley,
    A Brave New World.
     
  25. greatdanechick

    greatdanechick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Haha you said " I believe that gays should have the EXACT same administrative rights as straight people..." so there you go. Because the government shouldn't regulate who has or raises children. There are plenty of straight couples who have no business raising children, but still do, maybe you should focus your concern on them. Plenty of gay couples would be totally fine raising children. To your point about it not being natural, actually same sex pairs often raise offspring in nature. Flamingos are on example where it's not uncommon to see a same sex pair "adopt" a chick and raise it together. My feeling is that there are thousands of children, perhaps millions, who need a loving home so why deny them that opportunity just because you personally don't like something? Is sitting in foster care or an orphanage better than being raised by humans who love and want you?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page