Why should not homo couples have the same marriage rights as heteros?

Because the vast majority of heterosexual couples have the potential to procreate, it serves as a basis for allowing all heterosexual couples to marry, even the ones who don't have the potential to procreate.

 

Look. Its not feces and monkey poo. Its reality and should be addressed when you talk about how the gay community is wanting the best for children.

Heterosexual parents and grandparents and aunts and uncles are concerned when children are brought a message to sexualize now and sexualize early. Whether it be some sex class at school that came off wrong, or the risque outfits you find in girls size 5 aisle, or teenagers sexting.....the heterosexual community has concerns and worries.

There is no such concern emanating from the homosexual community. The gay community seems to celebrate and depict gayness as adult fun, adult desires. The concerns and interests of kids are simply not considered.

Blatant immorality and sex is a part of the heterosexual community as well----as fringe events. Girls Gone Wild is viewed with disgust in general from heterosexuals, especially parents. The girls on Girls Gone Wild---have been ashamed after the film was aired. What outrage from gays has ever occurred because of the over the top sex acts done during gay pride parades? Are they stressing this is not a "family event"? Or are they ushering all to come and see what it means to be gay?



So..gay activists are not wanting to change marriage so that kids can be protected. Its not a viable argument.

 

Aaannnd same response.

These are various tests to determine fertility.

http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and...tests-overview

Also it'd be really easy to figure out who is and is not fertile in marriage. I would say people only need about a 5 year time frame to have a child after marriage, most can get pregnant within the first year, but you know some have to come off of birth control and it takes a year or so for those effects to completely leave the body and return to normal fertility. So if after 5 years of trying to have a child the couple does not we simply revoke their marriage license and should they want to enter into another marriage with someone else they must first prove their fertility by taking medical tests. If one of them is proved to be infertile well then no marriage for them.

See how easy that is? This way those jerks who don't ever plan on having kids or those jerks who simply can't have them won't get any special legal benefits for not making babies. How's that sound?

Oh and we can just disqualify anyone over the age of 55 from being allowed to get married since it's pretty much guaranteed they won't ever have children at that age.

Also I am sure you will want to outlaw invitro fertilization techniques since they are unnatural and they create thousands of embryos which will more than likely die.

 

But this is an invalid argument for excluding same sex couples.

 

Alas, yes it is.

Married parents who care are the best for children. Focus on that, it's what's important.

This has been a concern for a while. But you are carefully and deliberately missing the point. This has nothing to do with same-sex marriage or rights. It probably has more to do with how we feed our cattle and hogs.

This is a change, to be sure. And perhaps a worrisome change. And people are concerned. The sexual orientation of the concerned people is irrelevelant. People CARE about children.

Dead wrong. STUPIDLY wrong. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with how much parents care about their kids, and how much people care about possibly dangerous trends.

News flash! Gays and lesbians are people. They are often parents. They are embedded in our culture. We all share the same concerns. Demonizing them may stroke your prejudices, but we are all together in these things.

Girls Gone Wild is not about being gay. Many gays find the parades offensive and counterproductive. You are generalizing without justification.

Yes they are, yes it is, and you are simply wrong. You might as well argue that NASCAR fanatics don't care about children because all they talk about is cars, drivers and races. If there is any relationship between same-sex marriage and concern for children, it's that two-parent families with married parents have the best results for children. What the gay community wants is to be treated as normal human beings, with the same rights, practices, and acceptance. You know, PEOPLE. Not horrible demons from the depths of your fears.

 

Again- monkey feces.

If you want to have a discussion about these beliefs of yours- start a thread about it.

But in this thread- those are monkey feces.

 

Wisconsin not only doesn't care if a heterosexual couple is able to procreate- Wisconsin demands that some heterosexual couples prove that they are not able to procreate.

From the Wisconsin decision:

Neither argument is persuasive. First, amici’s argument that it would be “difficult (if
not impossible)” to attempt to determine a couple’s ability or willingness to procreate is
simply inaccurate. Amici identify no reason that the state could not require applicants for
a marriage license to certify that they have the intent to procreate and are not aware of any
impediments to their doing so. In fact, Wisconsin already does inquire into the fertility of
some marriage applicants, though in that case it requires the couple to certify that they are
not able to procreate, which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that do not
produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples. Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

To the extent amici mean to argue that an inquiry into fertility would be inappropriately intrusive because opposite-sex
married couples have a constitutional right not to procreate under Griswold, that argument
supports a view that the same right must be extended to same-sex couples as well. Cf.

 

This might turn out to be an important precedent, never intended in this decision. What this decision does is blazes a trail for two distinct sets of marryable qualifications with respect to consanguinity. It could be interpreted to mean that closeness of relationship is not relevant where the married couple cannot produce children together (as opposed to using surrogates). What the ramifications of this decision might be, remains for arising fact situations and due process to determine.

 

Sam, there is no such rule You are making things up. You might as well argue that since most people don't have blond hair, blonds can't marry! After all, blond hair and potential for procreation are EQUALLY relevant to marriage.

 

Wrong again. Second time I've asked you to read the data provided and the second time you have refused to do so. The preparation of the vagina for the penis, the fuilds secreted to aid the sperm is the evidence you are running away from.

Which of course I never denied.

Yet the body still preps for it just like someone who is sterile still preps the exact same way. Come back when you have more than your opinion to work with.

 

Wrong again. You are confusing details of the biology with details of the orientation. The lesbian has these physiological responses to sexual arousal. Regardless of what causes the sexual arousal.

Don't you understand this this undermines your own argument? Geriatrics have the same signs of sexual arousal. Sterile people have the same signs. What we're dealing with here is the CAUSE of the arousal, not the side-effects. Come back when you can deal with the facts.

 

A license is not a restriction it is permission.

Rights require no permission.

 

You have not posted any data in your responses to me. You just want me to do the leg work in finding your evidence for you. Sorry but that's not how it works.

Right, you said that when people become sexually aroused their bodies prepare to naturally procreate. I have proven this false by showing you that people can become sexually aroused whether procreation is actually possible or not.

No it doesn't. If it did we would only have sex when procreation was actually possible and we would go into heat and rut cycles, but we do not and we can have sex at all times and various stages of life whether procreation is physically possible or not.

 

Because they cannot produce children, or act as symbolic dual gender parents.

 

Another troll arrives. Are you going to present a serious, legally defendable argument or are you here to throw little inane stick bombs at us?

 

Until now, you have been mostly bloviating about how children need a "traditional family", a mother an a father to justify your opposition to same sex marriage and adoption.

Yesterday, for the second time, I responded with a lengthy post clearly spelling out how it's a fallacy to claim that banning marriage and adoption by gays will result in more children having a mam and dad. I also pointed out in clear and concise terms how banning marriage and adoption by gay people actually harms children.

You have failed to respond, and I am guessing that you have failed to respond because you have no response. Instead, you invent a new red herring-the sexualization of children by the gay community. It's clear that you and those like you will go to any lengths to justify and rationalize your bigotry while being to cowardly to actually admit that you are in fact a bigot. Moreover, you have no qualms about using children as pawns in your loosing fight against equality. That is despicable, intellectually dishonest, and pathetic.

 

Perhaps those of you who have been railing against same sex marriage and it's effect on children will have something to say about this:

 

Had I heard of it before today, I guarantee it would not have captured my imagination.

Such pronouncements are only impressive to paragons of credulity who are content to let pseudo-scientific authority figures do their thinking for them. You're welcome.

 

No, let's base our views on homosexuality on a 2000+ year old book which said we should stone homosexuals to death....not "psudeo-scienfic authority figures".

 

You might want to read further before deciding who is responsible for the pseudo science:

 

So you believe homosexuals should not be able to marry because they cannot produce children?

What about sterile heterosexuals?

Wisconsin even allows first cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they are sterile- and cannot produce any children.

To me- arguing that homosexuals cannot get married because they aren't birthing babies(which isn't quite true), while allowing heterosexuals to marry who not only don't care about having babies but are physically incapable of having babies appears to be blatant discrimination.

 

I have tried to engage CKW in a rational even tempered dialogue. I have asked him serious questions regarding the nature of marriage.

He appears to prefer to fling monkey poo.

 

FYI, Profile says "female" Who knows. She appears to have run for cover from our withering blasts of truth and logic. People like that just really make me crazy. She'll probably pop up on some other thread. I'll be watching and waiting. I want answers by god!

 

Some highlights:

 

There's no need, trust me.

How very amusing.

Non causa pro causa fallacy.