I support gay marriage

Children of unmarried mothers?

Well that has real meaning when discussing house holds of with two parents of the same gender, who wish to be married and provide the stability a child needs and deserves.

 

No circles, right here where Ive always been.

 

Yes. The only alternative to being born to married mother and father would be being born to unmarried mothers. And the idea is for the mother to be married to the only other person in the world obligated by law to provide and care for her child. The father. Not simply someone for the mother to have sex with. And with two men, single mothers arent an issue.

 

Well, a child could be born to a woman married to another woman. And the two people obligated by law to provide for the child would be the birth mother and her wife. A child could also be born to a woman married to a man in the same scenario, where someone else's sperm is used, and the same rules apply. And in both cases the wife and husband are just someone for the birth mother to have sex with, be romantically involved with and raise a family.

Virtually any woman can get pregnant, whether with a male partner or with a sperm donation. The best chance at making sure that the child has two parents who are obligated to take care of the child is to make sure that woman is married, whether it's to a man or to a woman.

As for two men marrying, ya, there's not much risk of pregnancy between the two of them, but the needs and obligations of raising a child extend well beyond the point of conception and birth. I could rationalize and support the idea that marriage rights are granted to them after a child is adopted by both, or after they use a surrogate.

 

[video=youtube;OGK9aNe7Uh4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGK9aNe7Uh4&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Just a lovely video that does a very elegant job of debunking many argument made against gays.

Figured I'd share since it is relevant to many of the issues raised here.

 

No, the father would still be the only other person in the world, obligated to care for the child. Marriage only creates parental rights and responsibilities in the case of a man, married to the mother of the child

 

Look back to your original quote. You said "obligate by law", not just "obligated".


Obligation to care for a child is a social and legal construct, not a biological fact. If two women decide to have a child and use a sperm donation, the obligation should be for both those women to be obligated to care for the child, and the best way to make sure their child has two parents obligated to provide us for those two women to be married.

 

Ah your fondness for the irrelevant to avoid the relevant. The father would still be the only other person in the world, obligated BY LAW to care for the child.

 

Biological relation is not the only way to establish parental rights and obligations, as you frequently point out ( or that I point out for you when you speak of the presumption of paternity). The married husband is obligated by law regardless of biological relation, unless he can prove fraud on the part of the wife (I.e lieing about the biological relation). It makes perfect sense that the legally obligated party of a couple that uses artificial insemination should be the birth mother and her husband, not the anonymous donor. The same holds true of a wife and a wife.

 

Heterosexual sex has a strong, natural tendency to lead to procreation. Gay sex has no such tendency to lead to artificial insemination. ABSURD to argue that we cant limit marriage to heterosexual couples because not all heterosexual couples are willing and able to procreate. And to correct the situation you want to create "gay marriage" on the off hand chance that the gay couple might choose to artificially inseminate one or the other. As if the fact that not all lesbian couples are willing or able to be artificial inseminated suddenly isnt an issue.

 

.....And suddenly you selectively forget that not all heterosexual couples can procreate.

Whoops.....and that's where your argument lands on its ear.

You say homosexuals can't marry because they might not have kids...but heterosexuals can marry even though they might not have kids.

Logic....you have none.

 

Does that mean that the mother could let her child suffer from lack of care, starvation, or endangerment?

Have you look at divorce laws lately?

Divorce courts today SHARE the responsibility of providing and caring for the child between both parents. And in join custody, the parent with the largest income is usually obliged to pay child support to the other, and if it is the woman, it is she who will pay child support to the man if his income doesn't give him the ability to financially care for his kids.

Your opinions are so outdated, you are working with data that is 40 years old at least!

 

Red herring. You're talking about the potential for procreation among heterosexuals who have sex in a discussion about the rights and obligations granted to those who use artificial insemination. A man and wife who use artificial insemination have rights and obligations automatically assigned to the non-biological father, irrevocable unless he demonstrates fraud. This assins obligations to the non-biological father, allowing for the hold to be guaranteed two providers. This same situation applies to lesbians who use artificial insemiation, why are these rules not just as important for them and their child?

Why do you only care about the potential created by heterosexual couples and not lesbians? Why do you support these special rules for heterosexual couples that facilitate their use of artificial insemination, bu deny it to lesbians?

How about this... Another compromise. What if we gave marriage rights to the lesbian couple go is currently recieving artificial insemination treatment. This woman has a HIGH potential to procreate, and there should thus be a HIGH incentive for the state to marry her to her wife so that the wife will share in the legal obligations and rights. Would you rather the hold be born to a single mother? What's the point of denying this couple the same opportunity to build the nest? The best way to guarantee both women are obligated and to build the nest is for them to be married before birth, why deny them and their child this?

 

We are being discriminated against and it is a very important issue. I want to have job security and the same benefits a heterosexual couple get when they get married.

 

????? No.

Yes.

The marriage didnt create those rights and responsibilities to the child, from the mother. GIVING BIRTH obligates the mother, einstein.

Did you have a point you wanted to make? Or just stupid questions and your declarations of the obvious?

 

In that case, neither do old/infertile couples, so why isn't that being shunned?

 

Because Dixion is a fan of faulty/flawed/circular logic.

 

don't forget to call him a homophobe too.... you already implied ignorant.

 

Its called Constitutional law. Your labeling it faulty/flawed/circular logic is meaningless other than to demonstrate you couldnt form a rational argument in response.

 

EXCEPT that that's not the actual test we use. If that was the actual test we use to determine whether two people could get married, it would be illegal to marry a woman after menopause (when she becomes infertile), and it would be equally as illegal for her to marry. Same thing if the woman has a hysterectomy -- no kids are possible as she doesn't have a uterus, yet we don't deny post-hysterectomy women the right to marry anyone they want. Or if the man has a vesectomy -- no change in the possibility of getting married. And even if you wiggle away from that, why doesn't adoption or foster parenting count as fertility -- you are raising a child, even if you didn't physically give birth to said child.

If we were asking heteros about fertility, you'd have a point, but not only are we not forbidding known infertile people from having a marriage, WE DON'T EVEN ASK THE QUESTION.

 

No one is saying anything about any "test" so I cant imagine what you would be babbling on about.

 

except that's not constitutional law. the ability or intention to procreate is irrelevant and not required in order to marry. which is why your logic continues to fall on it's face.

 

your entire argument hinges upon a requirement for the ability or intention to procreate. no such requirement exists, which is why your argument is idiotic and remains refuted.

 

Yes it is Constitutional law and no one has claimed procreation was required. Baseless denials combined with a strawman.

 

nope. its not constitutional law. your entire argument hinges upon a requirement for the ability or intention to procreate. no such requirement exists, which is why your argument is idiotic and remains refuted.