Gay Marriage

[Takaram]

2 men cant have babies together. ergo a man man relationship is not as valid as a man woman relationship because they cannot do the same things.

Again, not all men or women can have children, and we let them get married. I'd really appreciate if you would actually address my argument rather than just repeat the same non sequitur.

[Grave_n_idle]

2 men cant have babies together. ergo a man man relationship is not as valid as a man woman relationship because they cannot do the same things.

And a couple where one of the partners is an amputee may not be able to run three-legged-races. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same rights.

[Bluth Corporation]

Marriage offers many legal benefits, few related to making babies.

Encouraging two-parent households benefits the state.

Why should that matter? The state's interest is irrelevant; the state is our servant, not our master. The state shouldn't restrict our activities based on what's best for it; we should shape the state based on what's best for us.

[Noveros Prime]

His reasoning is sound. The vast majority of heterosexual couples can (and will) produce children, which benefits society. Homosexual couples cannot procreate naturally. Giving preference to the natural order is logical. Furthermore, there is no "right" to marriage. Either something is a right (and you always have it) or something is not a right (and you don't).

[Christian Democrats]

I'm fine with lesbians raising their children. I don't understand why their unions should receive legal recognition. Sexual orientation and raising children are private matters. Marriage is in the public sphere.

So, even though they are raising a child and in every manner acting the same way as a straight couple, they are somehow inferior because they don't have a Y chromosome amongst them?

The main reason for the state to recognize marriage is to promote procreation. Raising and creating children are different things.

[Dyakovo]

Because the only reason to get married to make babies, amirite?

The only reason for the state to recognize marriage is to encourage baby-making.

So infertile straight couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
*nods*

[Grave_n_idle]

Can two people of the same sex get married? No; it would be as ridiculous as two dogs getting married.

That makes no sense. Dogs can't marry because they can't consent.

[Christian Democrats]

Encouraging two-parent households benefits the state.

Why should that matter? The state's interest is irrelevant; the state is our servant, not our master. The state shouldn't restrict our activities based on what's best for it; we should shape the state based on what's best for us.

Gay relationships aren't restricted in the U.S.

[Avenio]

His reasoning is sound. The vast majority of heterosexual couples can (and will) produce children, which benefits society. Homosexual couples cannot procreate naturally. Giving preference to the natural order is logical.

There really is no reason not to recognize same-sex marriage, though. By that logic, recognition is a net gain, as a significant percentage of same-sex couples will have children, one way or another, which benefits society.

[Takaram]

His reasoning is sound. The vast majority of heterosexual couples can (and will) produce children, which benefits society. Homosexual couples cannot procreate naturally. Giving preference to the natural order is logical.

It is not, because if marriage only exists to produce children, than the only valid marriages are those able to produce children, regardless of the sexes of the individuals involved. And being able to procreate and being able to raise a child are two totally different things. While two people of the same sex many not be able to naturally procreate, the more important step of raising that child can be done just as well by couples of any orientation.

[Takaram]

So, even though they are raising a child and in every manner acting the same way as a straight couple, they are somehow inferior because they don't have a Y chromosome amongst them?

The main reason for the state to recognize marriage is to promote procreation. Raising and creating children are different things.

Very, very true. Fortunately, a homosexual couple may do the raising part just as well as a heterosexual one.

[Grave_n_idle]

His reasoning is sound. The vast majority of heterosexual couples can (and will) produce children, which benefits society. Homosexual couples cannot procreate naturally. Giving preference to the natural order is logical.

I'm way over 6 feet tall. Considerably over 200 lbs. Think Viking, but with a college education.

The 'natural order' is for me to kill you and take all your shit.

I'm sure you agree. That would be 'logical'.

[Grave_n_idle]

So, even though they are raising a child and in every manner acting the same way as a straight couple, they are somehow inferior because they don't have a Y chromosome amongst them?

The main reason for the state to recognize marriage is to promote procreation.

Rubbish.

[Archem States]

Can two people of the same sex get married? No; it would be as ridiculous as two dogs getting married.

thank you a voice of reason.

People of the same-sex can't get married because people like you won't let them. Not because it is physically impossible. The only reason that dogs don't get married is because they can't understand the concept. I'm sure there are plenty of dogs who have have lasting relationships with each other. That is essentially marriage.

[Noveros Prime]

There really is no reason not to recognize same-sex marriage, though. By that logic, recognition is a net gain, as a significant percentage of same-sex couples will have children, one way or another, which benefits society.

Tut, tut. You think so small, friend. You must think larger. What benefit does society gain by redefining our customs to fit 3-5% of the population? Very little. The minority must acquiesce to the majority.

I'm way over 6 feet tall. Considerably over 200 lbs.

Of this I am quite certain.

[Christian Democrats]

The only reason for the state to recognize marriage is to encourage baby-making.

So infertile straight couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
*nods*

Why is someone's fertility any of the government's business?

The government knows same-sex couples can't procreate; hypothetically, how do you propose the government would figure out which heterosexual couples are and aren't fertile?

[Bluth Corporation]

Why should that matter? The state's interest is irrelevant; the state is our servant, not our master. The state shouldn't restrict our activities based on what's best for it; we should shape the state based on what's best for us.

Gay relationships aren't restricted in the U.S.

Neither should marriages be. Even if your anti-Christian assertion that they're somehow bad for the state is true, it's irrelevant for exactly the reasons I gave above.

[Takaram]

There really is no reason not to recognize same-sex marriage, though. By that logic, recognition is a net gain, as a significant percentage of same-sex couples will have children, one way or another, which benefits society.

Tut, tut. You think so small, friend. You must think larger. What benefit does society gain by redefining our customs to fit 3-5% of the population? Very little. The minority must acquiesce to the majority.

Society gains a numerically significant number of two-parent households in which children currently being neglected in the foster care system may be raised.

[Grave_n_idle]

The main reason for the state to recognize marriage is to promote procreation. Raising and creating children are different things.

Very, very true. Fortunately, a homosexual couple may do the raising part just as well as a heterosexual one.

And I'm pretty sure we're all aware that marriage isn't actually a requirement for the production part.

[Christian Democrats]

The main reason for the state to recognize marriage is to promote procreation.

Rubbish.

Then, there's no reason for the state to recognize marriages . . .

[Takaram]

So infertile straight couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
*nods*

Why is someone's fertility any of the government's business?

The government knows same-sex couples can't procreate; hypothetically, how do you propose the government would figure out which heterosexual couples are and aren't fertile?

Medical records?
More importantly, as you just said a few posts ago, raising a child, which can be done by hetero- or homosexual parents, is something totally different from creating one.

[Grave_n_idle]

So infertile straight couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
*nods*

Why is someone's fertility any of the government's business?

The government knows same-sex couples can't procreate;

The government isn't stupid. The government knows that homosexuals can procreate, just not necessarily with their chosen partners.... but then, law doesn't require you to have biological children with your chosen partner anyway, so it's irrelevant.

[Takaram]

Very, very true. Fortunately, a homosexual couple may do the raising part just as well as a heterosexual one.

And I'm pretty sure we're all aware that marriage isn't actually a requirement for the production part.

As any number of young parents at my high school will tell you.

Rubbish.

Then, there's no reason for the state to recognize marriages . . .

Well, that's another can of worms you're opening up there. But there are legitimate reasons, however.

[Christian Democrats]

Gay relationships aren't restricted in the U.S.

Neither should marriages be. Even if your anti-Christian assertion that they're somehow bad for the state is true, it's irrelevant for exactly the reasons I gave above.

Gay relationships are neither bad nor good for the state. Heterosexual relationships are good for the state. Therefore, heterosexual marriages are recognized and gay marriages aren't. It's a pretty simple concept.

[Noveros Prime]

Society gains a numerically significant number of two-parent households in which children currently being neglected in the foster care system may be raised.

Doubtful. Lesbians are quite fond of artificial insemination.

Gay relationships are neither bad nor good for the state.

Given that the acceptance of homosexual relationships has a positive relationship with the loosening of sexual mores (and the acceptance of other, more deviant sexual orientations), I would say they are detrimental to the state.