Gay Civil Union Discussion

[Pandeeria]

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.

But they don't need children to get married.

[Jormengand]

Marriage exists in part to provide parents with the legal framework and financial stability necessary to raise children.

What about adopted children, or children caused from artificial insemination, i.e. the kids of children gay people can have?

[Olthar]

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.

As long as the parents are loving and caring, their marital status is irrelevant.

[Divair]

People can have children without getting married, but I don't think anyone would argue that that's an ideal situation.

For plenty of people it is.

Marriage exists in part to provide parents with the legal framework and financial stability necessary to raise children.

Bullshit, otherwise people wouldn't get married and not have kids.


And even if marriage were currently designed exclusively to support baby-making (and it isn't, ffs, your argument is complete nonsense that you refuse to back up with evidence), that isn't an excuse not to expand the definition to include homosexuals (who can have kids through adoption or artificial means, which you conveniently ignored earlier). It wouldn't impact heterosexual marriages in any fucking way, any fucking shape, or any fucking form.

[Auralia]

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.

I don't support legislating for that corner case.

[Auralia]

Marriage exists in part to provide parents with the legal framework and financial stability necessary to raise children.

What about adopted children, or children caused from artificial insemination, i.e. the kids of children gay people can have?

The facilitation of adoption is not the primary purpose of marriage.

I disagree with artificial insemination, because it separates a child from his or her biological parents.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

My parents had me and my brothers outside of marriage, and we have led healthy lives.

Of course, that doesn't count I guess because I must be an evil child and a spawn of Satan to you as well.

[Jormengand]

The facilitation of adoption is not the primary purpose of marriage.

I disagree with artificial insemination, because it separates a child from his or her biological parents.

Why does the purpose of marriage matter over and above the benefits of marriage?

Why should this matter?

[Divair]

The facilitation of adoption is not the primary purpose of marriage.

Neither is baby-making.

I disagree with artificial insemination, because it separates a child from his or her biological parents.

So fucking what? It doesn't make a difference.

[Jormengand]

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.

My parents had me and my brothers outside of marriage, and we have led healthy lives.

Of course, that doesn't count I guess.

Well, one could argue that it doesn't count 'cause it's anecdotal, but...

[Ifreann]

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.

I don't support legislating for that corner case.

You're the one who's been saying that children need their biological parents, and they should ideally be married. Were you wrong? Do the biological children of a gay couple not count? What about the natural ordering you were talking about? Aren't you going against it by not allowing for this situation, and thus all gay marriages?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

My parents had me and my brothers outside of marriage, and we have led healthy lives.

Of course, that doesn't count I guess.

Well, one could argue that it doesn't count 'cause it's anecdotal, but...

My point is that it's not the marital status of people that determines how good or bad you will be in life, it all depends on whether your parent(s) or not guided you properly.

[Divair]

Still waiting for an answer as to how the fuck extending marriage to homosexuals would impact baby-making. Do you think they'll start interrupting people when they're having sex or some such bullshit?

[Jormengand]

Still waiting for an answer as to how the fuck extending marriage to homosexuals would impact baby-making. Do you think they'll start interrupting people when they're having sex or some such bullshit?

Or devalue straight people's marriages, somehow stopping them having kids.

Like Brittney Spears' seven hour (I think) long marriage, would be totally devalued. *Nods.*

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Still waiting for an answer as to how the fuck extending marriage to homosexuals would impact baby-making. Do you think they'll start interrupting people when they're having sex or some such bullshit?

Because apparently homosexuals have Jedi powers that don't let Hetero men and women have children let alone good sex.

[Olthar]

Still waiting for an answer as to how the fuck extending marriage to homosexuals would impact baby-making. Do you think they'll start interrupting people when they're having sex or some such bullshit?

Knock, knock.
What the fuck!? We're having sex in here!
Interrupting gays.
Get the fuck out of--
MOO!

[Avenio]

Still waiting for an answer as to how the fuck extending marriage to homosexuals would impact baby-making. Do you think they'll start interrupting people when they're having sex or some such bullshit?

I don't know why you're bothering. The reason he's not answering it is because it would mean he'd call attention to the fact that his secularist pantomime is a rather sad attempt at covering up the Christian religious underpinnings to his argument.

[Pandeeria]

Still waiting for an answer as to how the fuck extending marriage to homosexuals would impact baby-making. Do you think they'll start interrupting people when they're having sex or some such bullshit?

It's ok Divair. Anything that conveniently pokes a hole in his argument normally is ignored™.

[Auralia]

People can have children without getting married, but I don't think anyone would argue that that's an ideal situation.

For plenty of people it is.

It happens, or it's an ideal situation? Because it's obviously not an ideal situation.

Marriage exists in part to provide parents with the legal framework and financial stability necessary to raise children.

Bullshit, otherwise people wouldn't get married and not have kids.

What are we talking about here? Infertility, abstinence or the use of contraception? I have different arguments for each, so I need to know.

And even if marriage were currently designed exclusively to support baby-making (and it isn't, ffs, your argument is complete nonsense that you refuse to back up with evidence), that isn't an excuse not to expand the definition to include homosexuals (who can have kids through adoption or artificial means, which you conveniently ignored earlier). It wouldn't impact heterosexual marriages in any fucking way, any fucking shape, or any fucking form.

I never said marriage was "designed exclusively to support baby-making". The comprehensive union between a man and woman is good in and of itself, but it is also naturally linked to procreation as well.

"Expanding" marriage to same-sex couples would necessarily weaken the links between marriage and childbearing, because gay couples are not able to procreate. The state would be promoting the view that marriage is exclusively about emotional commitment, which would increase marital instability. The state would also be obscuring opposite-sex parenting as the ideal family structure.

I oppose gay adoption because I think children should have both a mother and a father. I also oppose artificial insemination because it purposely separates a child from his or her biological parents.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Still waiting for an answer as to how the fuck extending marriage to homosexuals would impact baby-making. Do you think they'll start interrupting people when they're having sex or some such bullshit?

I don't know why you're bothering. The reason he's not answering it is because it would mean he'd call attention to the fact that his secularist pantomime is a rather sad attempt at covering up the Christian religious underpinnings to his argument.

They are not even Christian because he's saying that a man and a woman whom cannot have children without endangering the woman's life and therefore decide to scrap the idea of biological children and adopting instead are not fit to marry either, and that's a bunch of bullshit AFAIK.

[Divair]

It happens, or it's an ideal situation? Because it's obviously not an ideal situation.

It is for some

What are we talking about here? Infertility, abstinence or the use of contraception? I have different arguments for each, so I need to know.

All of them and more.

I never said marriage was "designed exclusively to support baby-making". The comprehensive union between a man and woman is good in and of itself, but it is also naturally linked to procreation as well.

Marriage is not natural, it cannot have a natural link.

"Expanding" marriage to same-sex couples would necessarily weaken the links between marriage and childbearing, because gay couples are not able to procreate. The state would be promoting the view that marriage is exclusively about emotional commitment, which would increase marital instability. The state would also be obscuring opposite-sex parenting as the ideal family structure.

Source.

I oppose gay adoption because I think children should have both a mother and a father.

Source.

I also oppose artificial insemination because it purposely separates a child from his or her biological parents.

Source.

[Jormengand]

I oppose gay adoption because I think children should have both a mother and a father. I also oppose artificial insemination because it purposely separates a child from his or her biological parents.

Why should a child have a mother and father, and why is taking a child from their biological parents if the situation necessitates it a bad thing?

[Auralia]

If both opposite-sex unions and same-sex unions can be considered marriage, then what is marriage? Simply a long-term, romantic relationship between two people?

[Jormengand]

If both opposite-sex unions and same-sex unions can be considered marriage, then what is marriage? Simply a long-term, romantic relationship between two people?

It is a legal contract which sometimes, but not always, has religious connotations. That is all it has ever been.

[Divair]

If both opposite-sex unions and same-sex unions can be considered marriage, then what is marriage? Simply a long-term, romantic relationship between two people?

That's what it is already, yes.