Gay Civil Union Discussion

[Blasveck]

No, no, it's okay. Trans* people exist, so now he has to let gay people marry.

No. For the purposes of marriage, biological sex, not gender, is relevant.

Where in the lawbooks does it state that that is relevant?

[Jormengand]

Remove impotence as grounds for annulment, obviously.

That won't happen, because it doesn't make any sense. The law wouldn't reflect physical reality anymore.

Marriage is not designed solely (or indeed at all, really) for the production of children.

[Divair]

Should either be? I'm still not seeing why.

Only a biological man and a biological women are capable of engaging in coitus.

Don't care. Try again.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Should either be? I'm still not seeing why.

Only a biological man and a biological women are capable of engaging in coitus.

The dictionary disagrees.

[Auralia]

That won't happen, because it doesn't make any sense. The law wouldn't reflect physical reality anymore.

Yes it would. Law determines reality if enforced. That's what law does.

I disagree, at least with respect to marriage. Marriage is a immutable natural institution; the law can either recognize it or not, but it cannot change it.

[Caecuser]

Remove impotence as grounds for annulment, obviously.

That won't happen, because it doesn't make any sense. The law wouldn't reflect physical reality anymore.

People determine laws, not reality.

[Divair]

Yes it would. Law determines reality if enforced. That's what law does.

I disagree, at least with respect to marriage. Marriage is a immutable natural institution; the law can either recognize it or not, but it cannot change it.

Utter fucking bullshit. Marriage is a concept created by mankind, specifically as a way to secure political alliances. It has since evolved into a relationship status. Try again.

[The Emerald Dawn]

That won't happen, because it doesn't make any sense. The law wouldn't reflect physical reality anymore.

People determine laws, not reality.

When dealing with legality.

Physical laws don't give a fuck what we think.

[Auralia]

That won't happen, because it doesn't make any sense. The law wouldn't reflect physical reality anymore.

Marriage is not designed solely (or indeed at all, really) for the production of children.

Marriage is naturally ordered to and fulfilled by the bearing of children, yes.

[Divair]

Marriage is not designed solely (or indeed at all, really) for the production of children.

Marriage is naturally ordered to and fulfilled by the bearing of children, yes.

No it isn't.

[Avenio]

Yes it would. Law determines reality if enforced. That's what law does.

I disagree, at least with respect to marriage. Marriage is a immutable natural institution; the law can either recognize it or not, but it cannot change it.

You know, you might get more out of your argument if you were just honest about it rather than trying to hide the elephant that is your religious underpinnings underneath the tea towel of secularism you have there.

[Tekania]

So a man who works in a pickle factory and lost his junk in a freak accident can't marry his girlfriend?

Yes. As I said earlier, impotence is grounds for annulment of a marriage.

Not necessarily... impotence itself would not be grounds for annulment. It only could insofar if it was relevant to a case of fraud within the context of the marriage (ie, being knowingly impotent and then lying about it to your spouse). At least that is how the law works here regarding annulments. If you know the person is impotent, and marry them anyway.... annulment has no chance of being granted based upon that.

[Jormengand]

Only a biological man and a biological women are capable of engaging in coitus.

The dictionary disagrees.

Hate to be devil's advocate, but it doesn't matter what the dictionary says for the purpose of this debate. He could just as easily sub in "Flying purple hippos" and, while annoying, it wouldn't have significant impact on the debate as long as we knew what he meant. Whether he is wrong to mean that is not directly related to the argument.

[Lost heros]

Marriage is not designed solely (or indeed at all, really) for the production of children.

Marriage is naturally ordered to and fulfilled by the bearing of children, yes.

So people who don't/can't have kids shouldn't be married?
Funny how it keeps coming back to this.

[Dazchan]

Incidentally, infertility isn't grounds for nullity (the Australian equivalent of an annulment) in Australia, and is only grounds for an annulment in the US if the infertility is not declared prior to marriage.

So, yeah, people without junk can be married, if their partners know that they don't have junk before they get married.

Infertility =/= impotence.

My apologies for using the wrong term. Feel free to check for yourself.

[Jormengand]

Marriage is naturally ordered to and fulfilled by the bearing of children, yes.

No it isn't.

You know, this is one of the things where we're gonna need a post full of links to sources, the way we did for evolution.

[Pandeeria]

Marriage is not designed solely (or indeed at all, really) for the production of children.

Marriage is naturally ordered to and fulfilled by the bearing of children, yes.

And?

[The Emerald Dawn]

The dictionary disagrees.

Hate to be devil's advocate, but it doesn't matter what the dictionary says for the purpose of this debate. He could just as easily sub in "Flying purple hippos" and, while annoying, it wouldn't have significant impact on the debate as long as we knew what he meant. Whether he is wrong to mean that is not directly related to the argument.

It doesn't help when the accepted definition by legal experts and sociological scholars disagree with his statement.

When even the dictionary is saying you're wrong about what you're saying, you're simply wrong.

[Tekania]

Yes let's let the gays marry each other [sarcasm]. Well, at least "gay marriage" is more possible as "gay sex". Marriage is not intended for two guys or girls. Marriage is a HOLY COVENANT made by ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!!! By "marrying" your friend of same gender is a disgrace. It is retarded to think about it. But, that shows were people are today. Stupid.

Marriage where I am from is a civil operation of the state. Religious coveneants and determinations of things which are holy have no relevance to the issue of marriage in the context of the state. In church you're free to view it however you like. But I will not allow you to use the state to bludgeon other people with your religion.

[Divair]

It's simple. People can have children without getting married. People can get married without having children. Marriage does nothing to impact sex that leads to a kid. Thus, Auralia's argument is bullshit. Thus, stop feeding him with attention when he clearly cannot back up his own argument.

[Jormengand]

Hate to be devil's advocate, but it doesn't matter what the dictionary says for the purpose of this debate. He could just as easily sub in "Flying purple hippos" and, while annoying, it wouldn't have significant impact on the debate as long as we knew what he meant. Whether he is wrong to mean that is not directly related to the argument.

It doesn't help when the accepted definition by legal experts and sociological scholars disagree with his statement.

When even the dictionary is saying you're wrong about what you're saying, you're simply wrong.

Yeah, he may be wrong to use that word, but that doesn't make his position any less valid.

The fact that his argument is a load of dingo's kidneys does, and you should probably be focusing on the actual argument.

[Ifreann]

No, no, it's okay. Trans* people exist, so now he has to let gay people marry.

No. For the purposes of marriage, biological sex, not gender, is relevant.

Okay. And someone can appear to be a man while biologically being female, and vice versa. So you have to either let gay people marry, since one of them could be transgendered and passing, or you have to violate the right to privacy of every couple looking to get married in order to confirm their biological sex. Now, since you've previously opposed actually testing for infertility or impotence on the grounds of privacy, I trust you'll remain consistent in your views and concede that gay couples should be allowed to marry.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

How convenient you dismissed my example.

I'm very sorry that you and your girlfriend cannot have sex without endangering your girlfriend's life. I would say that this effectively precludes marriage in this case, which is very unfortunate.

What a croak of shit, because she is medically infertile because of her epilepsy, and is not a thing that we both enjoy because we do want to have children. And I'll be damned if you tell me I can't marry my own girlfriend because of something neither of us has control over.

[Auralia]

It's simple. People can have children without getting married. People can get married without having children. Marriage does nothing to impact sex that leads to a kid. Thus, Auralia's argument is bullshit. Thus, stop feeding him with attention when he clearly cannot back up his own argument.

People can have children without getting married, but I don't think anyone would argue that that's an ideal situation. Marriage exists in part to provide parents with the legal framework and financial stability necessary to raise children.

[Lost heros]

It's simple. People can have children without getting married. People can get married without having children. Marriage does nothing to impact sex that leads to a kid. Thus, Auralia's argument is bullshit. Thus, stop feeding him with attention when he clearly cannot back up his own argument.

People can have children without getting married, but I don't think anyone would argue that that's an ideal situation. Marriage exists in part to provide parents with the legal framework and financial stability necessary to raise children.

So gay people who adopt should be allowed to get married. Got it.