Gay Civil Union Discussion

[Ifreann]

No.

I'm saying that equality before and under the law is granted to all people regardless of the colour of their skin, the place they were born, with whom they sleep, etc. If two consenting adults wish to enter into a legally recognized relationship, it doesn't matter what sex they are.

Legal recognition of relationships is a privilege, not a right, though. We don't grant special legal protection for all relationships (e.g. friends), only those that serve a particular state interest.

Loving v. Virginia and the UDHR would like a word.

---

Sexism too? Aren't you just a delight.

It's not sexism to recognize that men and women are different but complementary, and so both are needed for proper child development. It's called new feminism.

It very much is sexism. And there's really nothing new about it.

---

Legal recognition of relationships is a privilege, not a right, though. We don't grant special legal protection for all relationships (e.g. friends), only those that serve a particular state interest.

So you're saying that your relationship must serve the state for it too have recognition? Doesn't that sound like, oh I don't know... Fascist?

These days on NSG, that's likely to make an idea more popular.

[Threlizdun]

Legal recognition of relationships is a privilege, not a right, though. We don't grant special legal protection for all relationships (e.g. friends), only those that serve a particular state interest.

Legal recognition of marriage and the ability to start a family however are human rights laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Mothers and fathers are equivalent.

Of course they're not. Clearly, mothers and fathers are different because one has a vagina while the other has a penis, and those are very important when raising children.

Who woulda thunk?!

I guess because I have some feminine traits in personality and body structure I must be a bad father then.

[Oneracon]

I agree. We should be adding a condition to marriage licenses that all couples who enter marriages must have at least one child.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That means all married that don't want kids or can't have kids can't get married. That is ridiculous discrimination against people based on personal preferences or biological occurrences.

Sad, I know, but we must act in the public interest.

[Pandeeria]

So you're saying that your relationship must serve the state for it too have recognition? Doesn't that sound like, oh I don't know... Fascist?

Then all modern societies must be fascist, because marriage receives special legal protection while standard friendships do not.

No not really. Friendships are just friendships. They make and break easily, they're legally not significant. Marriage you literally devout your self to another person (or people) economically, socially, biologically, and psychologically.

Not to mention friendships can serve the state.

[Othelos]

Sexism too? Aren't you just a delight.

It's not sexism to recognize that men and women are different but complementary, and so both are needed for proper child development. It's called new feminism.

So I'm assuming you would be opposed to a the idea of, say, a child raised by his father and uncle.

[Auralia]

Legal recognition of relationships is a privilege, not a right, though. We don't grant special legal protection for all relationships (e.g. friends), only those that serve a particular state interest.

I agree. We should be adding a condition to marriage licenses that all couples who enter marriages must have at least one child.

No. Childless marriages are still marriages, so long as they fulfill all of the requirements of marriage: complete union (emotional, spiritual and bodily union, the latter via the conjugal act), permanence, exclusivity, and a natural ordering towards childbearing.

[Lost heros]

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That means all married that don't want kids or can't have kids can't get married. That is ridiculous discrimination against people based on personal preferences or biological occurrences.

Sad, I know, but we must act in the public interest.

So public interest, doesn't include the interest of the people you're discriminating against?

[The Tundra]

No.

I'm saying that equality before and under the law is granted to all people regardless of the colour of their skin, the place they were born, with whom they sleep, etc. If two consenting adults wish to enter into a legally recognized relationship, it doesn't matter what sex they are.

Legal recognition of relationships is a privilege, not a right, though. We don't grant special legal protection for all relationships (e.g. friends), only those that serve a particular state interest.

legal recongnition of marriage is not a privilege, it's a right. and we've alreayd gone over time and again how homosexual marriage servers the state's intrest

stop being a dense, if your view doesn't hold water, think about getting a cup without so many holes.

[Neutraligon]

Of course they're not. Clearly, mothers and fathers are different because one has a vagina while the other has a penis, and those are very important when raising children.

Mothers and fathers also have different parenting styles, and play different roles in a child's development.

Really, so what is the general parenting style for mothers verse fathers? Also, what different roles do they play. Please be exact. Also please answer whether post menopausal women should be allowed to marry. Also please provide sauce for all the pasta.

[Lost heros]

I agree. We should be adding a condition to marriage licenses that all couples who enter marriages must have at least one child.

No. Childless marriages are still marriages, so long as they fulfill all of the requirements of marriage: complete union (emotional, spiritual and bodily union, the latter via the conjugal act), permanence, exclusivity, and a natural ordering towards childbearing.

So sterile or infertile people shouldn't get married? How stupid.

[Neutraligon]

I agree. We should be adding a condition to marriage licenses that all couples who enter marriages must have at least one child.

No. Childless marriages are still marriages, so long as they fulfill all of the requirements of marriage: complete union (emotional, spiritual and bodily union, the latter via the conjugal act), permanence, exclusivity, and a natural ordering towards childbearing.

What is natural ordering towards children? Also, homosexual couples are capable of all those things.

[Oneracon]

Sad, I know, but we must act in the public interest.

So public interest, doesn't include the interest of the people you're discriminating against?

Indeed not. You do realise this is sarcasm, right?

[Auralia]

It's not sexism to recognize that men and women are different but complementary, and so both are needed for proper child development. It's called new feminism.

So I'm assuming you would be opposed to a the idea of, say, a child raised by his father and uncle.

I would be concerned about the lack of a mother figure in that child's life, yes.

[Pandeeria]

I agree. We should be adding a condition to marriage licenses that all couples who enter marriages must have at least one child.

No. Childless marriages are still marriages, so long as they fulfill all of the requirements of marriage: complete union (emotional, spiritual and bodily union, the latter via the conjugal act), permanence, exclusivity, and a natural ordering towards childbearing.

Instead of having a set of arbitrary requirements, why not just as long as the people participating love each other and consent, they can get married?

[Othelos]

I agree. We should be adding a condition to marriage licenses that all couples who enter marriages must have at least one child.

No. Childless marriages are still marriages, so long as they fulfill all of the requirements of marriage: complete union (emotional, spiritual and bodily union, the latter via the conjugal act), permanence, exclusivity, and a natural ordering towards childbearing.

The Bible doesn't require marriages to have a "natural ordering towards childbearing".

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Sexism too? Aren't you just a delight.

It's not sexism to recognize that men and women are different but complementary, and so both are needed for proper child development. It's called new feminism.

Bullshit.

They need proper guidance in their developmental stages, not to have both parents. My ex girlfriend did not have her biological father with her and his stepdad... well, let's just say he was a fucking asshole, but she still grew up to be a great woman who I do admire greatly, so this is a ton of shit you are postulating.

[Olthar]

Of course they're not. Clearly, mothers and fathers are different because one has a vagina while the other has a penis, and those are very important when raising children.

Who woulda thunk?!

I guess because I have some feminine traits in personality and body structure I must be a bad father then.

As long as you still have a penis, everything will be fine. That's far more important to raising children than personality. *nods*

[Caecuser]

I agree. We should be adding a condition to marriage licenses that all couples who enter marriages must have at least one child.

No. Childless marriages are still marriages, so long as they fulfill all of the requirements of marriage: complete union (emotional, spiritual and bodily union, the latter via the conjugal act), permanence, exclusivity, and a natural ordering towards childbearing.

Same-sex marriages can have bodily unions too you know, just not the child-bearing type.

And nowhere is it ever stated that marriage is for the purpose of childbearing, that is one reason amongst many that people may want to be married but not a requirement.

[Lost heros]

So public interest, doesn't include the interest of the people you're discriminating against?

Indeed not. You do realise this is sarcasm, right?

I clearly did not. I've heard these arguments before by homophobes.

[Dazchan]

They are entitled to the word marriage because marriage is the term used for a certain set of rights and privileges given to couples. Having a separate word for the exact same set of rights is completely and utterly ridiculous. The only reason to have a different word for he exact same set of rights is due to discrimination.

You say discrimination, i say classification.

So you admit that you want gays to be a different class of people to straights.

Pretty much a textbook definition of discrimination.

[Othelos]

So I'm assuming you would be opposed to a the idea of, say, a child raised by his father and uncle.

I would be concerned about the lack of a mother figure in that child's life, yes.

What if the child's grandmother lived with the family?

[Threlizdun]

I agree. We should be adding a condition to marriage licenses that all couples who enter marriages must have at least one child.

No. Childless marriages are still marriages, so long as they fulfill all of the requirements of marriage: complete union (emotional, spiritual and bodily union, the latter via the conjugal act), permanence, exclusivity, and a natural ordering towards childbearing.

None of those are requirements for marriage, nor have they ever been.

[Ifreann]

Of course they're not. Clearly, mothers and fathers are different because one has a vagina while the other has a penis, and those are very important when raising children.

Mothers and fathers also have different parenting styles, and play different roles in a child's development.

Yes, all 3.5 billion men all behave the same way towards their children, and this is different from the way all 3.5 billion women behave towards their children.

You know, you're swiftly heading for the point at which you wouldn't look any worse if you just announced that you hate gays and want to oppress them.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Who woulda thunk?!

I guess because I have some feminine traits in personality and body structure I must be a bad father then.

As long as you still have a penis, everything will be fine. That's far more important to raising children than personality. *nods*

But what if I don't have a penis? D: What if something happens that I might lose it?