Gay Civil Union Discussion

[Auralia]

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?

Maternal and parental parenting styles are different but complementary, so both are necessary for proper child development.

Taking a child away from his or her biological parents is not necessary in the case of artificial insemination. There is no abuse or financial inability to provide for the child.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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's a COMMITMENT between two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together.

Well no, let me scratch that, the marriage is just a symbolism that has significance to the state only. The couple already has a commitment before the marriage, otherwise they wouldn't marry to begin with.

[Divair]

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?

Maternal and parental parenting styles are different but complementary, so both are necessary for proper child development.

Taking a child away from his or her biological parents is not necessary in the case of artificial insemination. There is no abuse or financial inability to provide for the child.

Source and source.

[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?

That's what it is already, yes.

Why should it be limited to two people?

[Divair]

That's what it is already, yes.

Why should it be limited to two people?

Did I say it should be? You're the one arguing for limits on marriage, not me.

[Dazchan]

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?

Yep, backed up by a legal contract which affords them certain rights under law.

Notice how "ability to bone the missus" doesn't appear in the definition?

[Jormengand]

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?

Maternal and parental parenting styles are different but complementary, so both are necessary for proper child development.

Taking a child away from his or her biological parents is not necessary in the case of artificial insemination. There is no abuse or financial inability to provide for the child.

I'd like you to source both of tho...

Maternal and parental parenting styles are different but complementary, so both are necessary for proper child development.

Taking a child away from his or her biological parents is not necessary in the case of artificial insemination. There is no abuse or financial inability to provide for the child.

Source and source.

God damn it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That's what it is already, yes.

Why should it be limited to two people?

I shouldn't, but it happens because of commitment.

Imagine what a woman would say if you were to take another wife and her at the same time

Some people dig that though.

[Auralia]

Maternal and parental parenting styles are different but complementary, so both are necessary for proper child development.

Taking a child away from his or her biological parents is not necessary in the case of artificial insemination. There is no abuse or financial inability to provide for the child.

Source and source.

1. Google "mother and father parenting styles".

2. A child cannot be abused or neglected if he or she hasn't been born yet, as in the case of artificial insemination.

[Pandeeria]

That's what it is already, yes.

Why should it be limited to two people?

It shouldn't. It should be limited to those who consent.

[Auralia]

Why should it be limited to two people?

I shouldn't, but it happens because of commitment.

So would you support extending marriage to a union of any number of people?

[Divair]

You know, the Netherlands legalized SSM 12 years ago. You'd think we'd fucking notice something by now if it's supposed to doom us all.

[Auralia]

And while we're at it, would anyone support extending marriage to a couple who aren't actually in a romantic relationship, and who are just friends?

[Auralia]

You know, the Netherlands legalized SSM 12 years ago. You'd think we'd fucking notice something by now if it's supposed to doom us all.

I haven't said anything like that. I just want to clarify what other people think marriage is and should be.

[Jormengand]

Source and source.

1. Google "mother and father parenting styles".

2. A child cannot be abused or neglected if he or she hasn't been born yet, as in the case of artificial insemination.

1. Why don't you, and you can share the link with us. Preferably peer reviewed medical journals.

2. But... when they are born...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I shouldn't, but it happens because of commitment.

So would you support extending marriage to a union of any number of people?

Yes, if they believe they can have commitment to multiple wives/husbands, yes.

It isn't my life after all, it's theirs. What they do with their life doesn't concern me as long as their lifestyle doesn't directly impact mine.

[Divair]

1. Google "mother and father parenting styles".

I'm not doing your work for you. Get off your ass and support your shit arguments. You've provided no evidence for anything you've said so far.

2. A child cannot be abused or neglected if he or she hasn't been born yet, as in the case of artificial insemination.

I want a source for this.

Taking a child away from his or her biological parents is not necessary in the case of artificial insemination.

[Divair]

You know, the Netherlands legalized SSM 12 years ago. You'd think we'd fucking notice something by now if it's supposed to doom us all.

I haven't said anything like that. I just want to clarify what other people think marriage is and should be.

It's already clear nobody cares about your definition, so why are you still here?

[Dusk_Kittens]

As I pointed out, US marriages are all civil, no religious ceremony is required. The difference is that civil unions tend to be less robust than marriages in the rights and privileges afforded the couple.

Yes, so if they are so sentimental to the word, why not let them keep it and just call them civil unions or something but with the same privileges ?

Because:
1. "Marriage" is not a religious institution, nor a religious sacrament, nor is it a word which "belongs" to any particular religion, nor to religion in general.
2. "Marriage" is not "Matrimony" -- "Matrimony" is a term applied to some Marriages (more fully, "Holy Matrimony").
3. Only a VERY SMALL NUMBER of Christian sects define "Holy Matrimony" as a "sacrament."
4. Attempts to reserve the term "marriage" to religious ceremonies (which are actually "weddings," and not "marriages"), or to one specific type of civil union, while denying the use of the term to others, demonstrates ignorance of points 1-3, and manifests discrimination.

[Auralia]

So would you support extending marriage to a union of any number of people?

Yes, if they believe they can have commitment to multiple wives/husbands, yes.

It isn't my life after all, it's theirs. What they do with their life doesn't concern me as long as their lifestyle doesn't directly impact mine.

So why marriage should even exist? If it can be extended to any number of people, for any reason, with no expectation of permanence or exclusivity, then what is it for?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Yes, if they believe they can have commitment to multiple wives/husbands, yes.

It isn't my life after all, it's theirs. What they do with their life doesn't concern me as long as their lifestyle doesn't directly impact mine.

So why marriage should even exist? If it can be extended to any number of people, for any reason, with no expectation of permanence or exclusivity, then what is it for?

Taxation.

[Divair]

Yes, if they believe they can have commitment to multiple wives/husbands, yes.

It isn't my life after all, it's theirs. What they do with their life doesn't concern me as long as their lifestyle doesn't directly impact mine.

So why marriage should even exist? If it can be extended to any number of people, for any reason, with no expectation of permanence or exclusivity, then what is it for?

Social status + legal benefits. Have you never bothered actually learning what the fuck marriage does?

[Jormengand]

[So why marriage should even exist? If it can be extended to any number of people, for any reason, with no expectation of permanence or exclusivity, then what is it for?

Since you're so keep on telling people to Google things, try "Benefits of marriage in [country]." Say the USA. You'll find a lot of interesting stuff.

EDIT: God's sake Divair, you keep saying almost exactly what I want to!

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, if they believe they can have commitment to multiple wives/husbands, yes.

It isn't my life after all, it's theirs. What they do with their life doesn't concern me as long as their lifestyle doesn't directly impact mine.

So why marriage should even exist? If it can be extended to any number of people, for any reason, with no expectation of permanence or exclusivity, then what is it for?

Permanence and exclusivity are relative terms.

Please define those first before trying to engage in this argument.

[Auralia]

So why marriage should even exist? If it can be extended to any number of people, for any reason, with no expectation of permanence or exclusivity, then what is it for?

Social status + legal benefits. Have you never bothered actually learning what the fuck marriage does?

Why grant married people a privileged social status? Why grant them special legal benefits?