Gay people's opinion should not be taken into account in the marriage debate

Either way, procreation is not required of marriage. You don't see people's licenses getting revoked for failure to have kids.

 

??? doesnt even have any relevance to MY arguments.

 

A boy growing up with two gay dads who act stereotypically "effeminate" may grow up thinking this is acceptable behavior for a male. Or vice versa, a girl growing up with 2 "macho" lesbian mothers may think and act too manly.

 

What? Your argument is that gays can't marry because they can't procreate.

Sterile couples can marry. They can't procreate. Therefore, your argument is worthless.

 

Normally do not respond to Thread with totally absurd premise. The premise:The defined group which is what the marriage debate is about, should be restricted from participation in the dabate, so that it can be resolved.

Sounds like the Israeli argument for resolving the Palestinian/Israeli debate. Lets remove the Palestinians first, and then the debate can be resolved.

 

Or a gay kid with two heterosexual parents can grow up to be straight--wait, nevermind.

 

Now, now we don't know where Dixon lives. He could be practicing law in Tehran for all we know...

 

That is still procreation. Adoption also forms a family. Families are what make up a stable society.

 

I wasn't even talking about sexuality, I was talking about a straight kid being raised by two gay men who act stereotypically effiminate, might grow up acting wussy. It would be better if he had a traditionally masculine male role model in his life

 

just like millions of heterosexual couples that use a third party.

this is why your argument is idiotic.

 

I wouldn't call that procreation. Don't fall into his "trap" that marriage requires rearing children.



Oh crap. That didn't come out right.

 

You have got it.
In order to define a couple as sterile you have to determine whether couple is indeed sterile.
That essentially means that you have to regulate and license heterosexual couples.
No such regulation and licensing is required for same sex couples, so no need to issue marriage license for them.

 

Even assuming for a moment that is true, why does allowing gays to marry necessarily mean they'll have the right to adopt? They are two entirely separate issues.

 

relationship between a man and a man also has social meaning.

marriage is not based on procreation. that's why the ability or intention to procreate has never, in the entire history of the US, been a requirment.

 

But the states don't do this. Therefore, the potential to procreate is not required of marriage.

 

Like I said, doesnt even have any relevance to my arguments. The courts couldnt have stated this more clearly

 

I have pointed to the fallacy you were trying to use.
But! Procreation is not a goal but a reason to license and regulate relationship between man and a woman.
Sex among couples does not have the effect on the society, procreation does. That means heterosexual couples require regulation while any other couples do not.

 

No one claimed it was. Step away from the strawman if you can

 

You don't need to determine that an octogenarian couple is sterile either. If you assume that there's no need to restrict same sex couples or octogenarian couples, then don't issue them a marriage license. But neither require it when they apply for a marriage certificate.​

​

 

Then explain how effeminate men are raised by macho fathers.

 

Relationship between two men does not affect society in any way, because such relationship will not create a new neighbor so no one notice anything.

 

One question. Woulden't it be more fun for homosexuals to keep it historical. Have orgies behind closed doors filled with dirty sex. With a quick shower afterwards to wash off the moral muck.

 

completely destroys it

 

That is fine, but you still is engaged in regulation of relationship between man and woman. You have to write a law that sets hundreds of criteria on at what age couple have to loose a license and what type of testing is necessary etc.
And we are back to the square one. Man and woman require regulation while any other couple does not.

 

Your suggestion is that homosexuals should have orgies instead of forming enduring monogamous commitments?

Define "dirty sex", please. Likewise "moral muck".