Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

lazybones32

marienbad wrote: »

Are infertile marriages less than fertile marriages so ? Should infertile people be allowed marry ?

What are the statistical probabilities of a heterosexual marriage being unable to conceive? What is the probability of a homosexual union being unable to conceive?

No, infertile people should be sent to the cheese mines on the Moon. That's part of my solution for infertile people and brown-eyed women.

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

For those who wanted info on birthing incentives...

"Since the mid-1970s, when it became clear that the number of births was resolutely declining, Japanese governments have made efforts to encourage people to have more babies. But for all that they have increased child benefits and provided day-care centres in the past 30 years, the birth rate has remained stubbornly low." The Death of Births - The Economist - Nov 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/27/do-it-for-denmark-campaign-wants-danes-to-have-more-sex-a-lot-more-sex/

(the last two are left-wing newspapers, so you are more likely to trust their version of events)

did non married people qualify for these benefits ?

And could I have an answer to my query on infertile people please.

lazybones32

No, infertile people should be sent to the cheese mines on the Moon.

shruikan2553

lazybones32 wrote: »

What are the statistical probabilities of a heterosexual marriage being unable to conceive? What is the probability of a homosexual union being unable to conceive?

No, infertile people should be sent to the cheese mines on the Moon. That's part of my solution for infertile people and brown-eyed women.

Then the ability to breed is irrelevant.

NuMarvel

lazybones32 wrote: »

What unique 'benefits'? The propagation of the species. The socialization and formation of those children within a family, with the ideal that they become happy, fulfilled, law-abiding members of Society. No homosexual union can ever produce children - ever. (Don't waste time by mentioning IVF et al because that uses male and female material, not solely male/male or female/female) Homosexual unions cannot be treated equally as heterosexual unions for this reason alone...because they are simply not equal. (Were you born of Man and Woman?)

If you are arguing along the lines of the quality of up-bringing, love shown to the child, etc; this is a different topic to homosexual unions being granted Legal Equality and Status to heterosexual Marriage.

The information exists in reality and in the virtual world. You have an Encyclopedia at your fingertips and you can research for yourself - like I did - to get the knowledge you seek. I'm not concerned at whether you believe what I write or not; I've supplied information and it's your decision to accept or reject. This is not the debate forum, nor is it a Scientific Journal whereby I must supply references and scholarly links.

These arguments have already been raised in this thread and conclusively countered. Do you have anything new to add?

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

What are the statistical probabilities of a heterosexual marriage being unable to conceive? What is the probability of a homosexual union being unable to conceive?

No, infertile people should be sent to the cheese mines on the Moon. That's part of my solution for infertile people and brown-eyed women.

- what is the relevance on the probabilities ? Is the purpose of marriage solely having children ?

shruikan2553

marienbad wrote: »

- what is the relevance on the probabilities ? Is the purpose of marriage solely having children ?

Only if they are gay. Otherwise having kids isnt an issue.

lazybones32

I'm not going to waste my time in teaching you how and why the family is the basis of Society, so I've chosen a few links from sources that you'll approve of to solidify my 'outrageous' stance...

"...the critical importance of the family as a central unit of society..." Fifty-ninth General Assembly of U.N. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/gashc3779.doc.htm

https://services.online.missouri.edu/exec/data/courses/2421/public/lesson01/lesson01.aspx A sociology Course

http://www.openschool.bc.ca/features/samples/fs_sample.pdf An Canadian explanation of Sociology for Children - maybe I should have given this first?

http://www.socqrl.niu.edu/Forest/SOCI454/Goode1.pdf

Pro Hoc Vice

lazybones32 wrote: »

For those who wanted info on birthing incentives...

"Since the mid-1970s, when it became clear that the number of births was resolutely declining, Japanese governments have made efforts to encourage people to have more babies. But for all that they have increased child benefits and provided day-care centres in the past 30 years, the birth rate has remained stubbornly low." The Death of Births - The Economist - Nov 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/27/do-it-for-denmark-campaign-wants-danes-to-have-more-sex-a-lot-more-sex/

(the last two are left-wing newspapers, so you are more likely to trust their version of events)

And http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/09/how_to_make_more_babies.html

In the first article, "euros (about $15,000) for every woman — local or immigrant, married or single — who would give birth to and rear a child in the village."

Second article mentions nothing of restricting it to married couples. Again the last article mentions nothing of married couples, while it uses the word couple it does not define that word.

Nice try but your not getting this evidence thing are you.

iwantmydinner

lazybones32 wrote: »

Were those babies born of homosexual unions? No. Therefore, they are not the same as heterosexual unions. Did you read the part...forget it.

Again though, babies being born has nothing to do with marriage. As you know, but seem to conveniently be forgetting, marriage is not a prerequisite for conception, and conception is not required of married couples. They are entirely separate things.

So if you could come back with an actual argument against same sex marriage, that'd be great.

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

I'm not going to waste my time in teaching you how and why the family is the basis of Society, so I've chosen a few links from sources that you'll approve of to solidify my 'outrageous' stance...

"...the critical importance of the family as a central unit of society..." Fifty-ninth General Assembly of U.N. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/gashc3779.doc.htm

https://services.online.missouri.edu/exec/data/courses/2421/public/lesson01/lesson01.aspx A sociology Course

http://www.openschool.bc.ca/features/samples/fs_sample.pdf An Canadian explanation of Sociology for Children - maybe I should have given this first?

http://www.socqrl.niu.edu/Forest/SOCI454/Goode1.pdf

family does not equate exclusively to marriage .

lazybones32

The argument that it takes a male and female to procreate has been countered?! I don't believe that but I'll let you have your view...

Is the purpose of marriage children: That depends on who's marrying and why.
The relevance of the probabilities is related to what you asked: should infertile couples not be allowed marry? A few per cent of heterosexual couples may not be able to conceive children (continue the human race) but the majority will be able. 100% of homosexual couples will be unable to procreate. Why should an Institution like a homosexual union be treated as equal to a heterosexual union when one has a very clear, distinct and necessary benefit over the other? Can you understand the difference?

eviltwin

lazybones32 wrote: »

I'm not going to waste my time in teaching you how and why the family is the basis of Society, so I've chosen a few links from sources that you'll approve of to solidify my 'outrageous' stance...

"...the critical importance of the family as a central unit of society..." Fifty-ninth General Assembly of U.N. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/gashc3779.doc.htm

https://services.online.missouri.edu/exec/data/courses/2421/public/lesson01/lesson01.aspx A sociology Course

http://www.openschool.bc.ca/features/samples/fs_sample.pdf An Canadian explanation of Sociology for Children - maybe I should have given this first?

http://www.socqrl.niu.edu/Forest/SOCI454/Goode1.pdf

Are those who chose to have children without marriage not proper familie then? I am a great believer in marriage for those who want it, its great but if that is not a road you want to go down its doesn't make your union or your family set up any less valid or important. Families come in all shapes and sizes now.

eviltwin

lazybones32 wrote: »

The argument that it takes a male and female to procreate has been countered?! I don't believe that but I'll let you have your view...

Is the purpose of marriage children: That depends on who's marrying and why.
The relevance of the probabilities is related to what you asked: should infertile couples not be allowed marry? A few per cent of heterosexual couples may not be able to conceive children (continue the human race) but the majority will be able. 100% of homosexual couples will be unable to procreate. Why should an Institution like a homosexual union be treated as equal to a heterosexual union when one has a very clear, distinct and necessary benefit over the other? Can you understand the difference?

My brother and his wife are unable to have children. I had my child prior to marriage. My friend is married and doesn't want children. My neighbour got married and had three kids. Are all those marriages equal in your eyes?

lazybones32

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Again though, babies being born has nothing to do with marriage. As you know, but seem to conveniently be forgetting, marriage is not a prerequisite for conception, and conception is not required of married couples. They are entirely separate things.

So if you could come back with an actual argument against same sex marriage, that'd be great.

These are replies to earlier accusations leveled at me.

I have given a biological reason why same-sex unions are inferior to Marriages but people are unwilling to understand.

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

The argument that it takes a male and female to procreate has been countered?! I don't believe that but I'll let you have your view...

Is the purpose of marriage children: That depends on who's marrying and why.
The relevance of the probabilities is related to what you asked: should infertile couples not be allowed marry? A few per cent of heterosexual couples may not be able to conceive children (continue the human race) but the majority will be able. 100% of homosexual couples will be unable to procreate. Why should an Institution like a homosexual union be treated as equal to a heterosexual union when one has a very clear, distinct and necessary benefit over the other? Can you understand the difference?

You are appropriating terms without justification. Marriage is not necessary for procreation - that is a simple fact.

Family may include married people but not exclusively so that is also a fact.

It would appear that you are conflating Christian matrimony with civil marriage - they are not the same .

shruikan2553

lazybones32 wrote: »

The argument that it takes a male and female to procreate has been countered?! I don't believe that but I'll let you have your view...

Is the purpose of marriage children: That depends on who's marrying and why.
The relevance of the probabilities is related to what you asked: should infertile couples not be allowed marry? A few per cent of heterosexual couples may not be able to conceive children (continue the human race) but the majority will be able. 100% of homosexual couples will be unable to procreate. Why should an Institution like a homosexual union be treated as equal to a heterosexual union when one has a very clear, distinct and necessary benefit over the other? Can you understand the difference?

You can have children outside of marriage so having children has nothing to do with it. There are 4 types of marriages by your logic.

heterosexual married people who can have children.
heterosexual married people who cant have children.
homosexual married people who can have children.
homosexual married people who cant have children.

You then claim that the child having ability is the important part but split them into homosexual and heterosexual. Should you not be splitting it into can have children and cant have children? What percentage of couples including heterosexual and homosexual cant have children?

lazybones32

eviltwin wrote: »

My brother and his wife are unable to have children. I had my child prior to marriage. My friend is married and doesn't want children. My neighbour got married and had three kids. Are all those marriages equal in your eyes?

Everyone is married. 1 out of 4 is unable to bear children; 1 chooses not to; 2 have reproduced.

If this were 4 homosexual couples: 4 out of 4 would be unable to reproduce; between 1 and 4 of those couples could choose not to reproduce and all 4 would not be able to reproduce.

Can people really not see the differences here?

shruikan2553

lazybones32 wrote: »

Everyone is married. 1 out of 4 is unable to bear children; 1 chooses not to; 2 have reproduced.

If this were 4 homosexual couples: 4 out of 4 would be unable to reproduce; between 1 and 4 of those couples could choose not to reproduce and all 4 would not be able to reproduce.

Can people really not see the differences here?

Theres a difference, its just we havent seen any reason to care about it. A homosexual couple can adopt or get an egg/sperm from someone else. Are this children inferior too?

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

Everyone is married. 1 out of 4 is unable to bear children; 1 chooses not to; 2 have reproduced.

If this were 4 homosexual couples: 4 out of 4 would be unable to reproduce; between 1 and 4 of those couples could choose not to reproduce and all 4 would not be able to reproduce.

Can people really not see the differences here?

It is your arbitrary decision to to equate marriage with conception followed by your inconsistent application of that notion that makes any perceived difference irrelevant.

And you don't even see the inherent cruelty in your thesis that infertile couples are of less value.

lazygal

lazybones32 wrote: »

Everyone is married. 1 out of 4 is unable to bear children; 1 chooses not to; 2 have reproduced.

If this were 4 homosexual couples: 4 out of 4 would be unable to reproduce; between 1 and 4 of those couples could choose not to reproduce and all 4 would not be able to reproduce.

Can people really not see the differences here?

No two marriages are ever the same as everyone is different. Why is my marriage with children different to a friend's who is married to a same sex partner? It's different because we're different people not because of ability or inability or lack of desire to procreate.

eviltwin

lazybones32 wrote: »

Everyone is married. 1 out of 4 is unable to bear children; 1 chooses not to; 2 have reproduced.

If this were 4 homosexual couples: 4 out of 4 would be unable to reproduce; between 1 and 4 of those couples could choose not to reproduce and all 4 would not be able to reproduce.

Can people really not see the differences here?

Why won't you answer the question?

Pro Hoc Vice

lazybones32 wrote: »

These are replies to earlier accusations leveled at me.

I have given a biological reason why same-sex unions are inferior to Marriages but people are unwilling to understand.

No you have not you have taken two unrelated issues and some how join them. It is true that only a sperm and a egg can make a child, (currently) so that requires a part of a women and a man. But what has that got to with marriage.

In reality marriage is about the protection of property in the past so the same argument about children can also be used about wealth unless you have property to protect should two people be allowed to marry?

lazybones32

marienbad wrote: »

You are appropriating terms without justification. Marriage is not necessary for procreation - that is a simple fact.

Family may include married people but not exclusively so that is also a fact.

It would appear that you are conflating Christian matrimony with civil marriage - they are not the same .

Where did I say marriage was a requirement for procreation?!

No, the argument is that a man and a woman can reproduce: most of the time they do this as a family - whether married or not. As in, they decide to have children, so there will be at least one parent and at least one child.

Civil marriage, Christian, Jew, Pagan marriage has the potential to produce offspring; unlike homosexual unions. Can you see the distinction that doesn't make them equal? Do you know what equality means?

eviltwin

lazybones32 wrote: »

Where did I say marriage was a requirement for procreation?!

No, the argument is that a man and a woman can reproduce: most of the time they do this as a family - whether married or not. As in, they decide to have children, so there will be at least one parent and at least one child.

Civil marriage, Christian, Jew, Pagan marriage has the potential to produce offspring; unlike homosexual unions. Can you see the distinction that doesn't make them equal? Do you know what equality means?

Gay couples also have the potential to produce a child just not with their partner. Its no different to any couple who can't conceive and need outside help.

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

Where did I say marriage was a requirement for procreation?!

No, the argument is that a man and a woman can reproduce: most of the time they do this as a family - whether married or not. As in, they decide to have children, so there will be at least one parent and at least one child.

Civil marriage, Christian, Jew, Pagan marriage has the potential to produce offspring; unlike homosexual unions. Can you see the distinction that doesn't make them equal? Do you know what equality means?

So follow your your logic to its natural conclusion then .In your view the core value of marriage is fertility , So should infertile couples be barred from marriage ?

_Redzer_

lazybones32 wrote: »

Everyone is married. 1 out of 4 is unable to bear children; 1 chooses not to; 2 have reproduced.

If this were 4 homosexual couples: 4 out of 4 would be unable to reproduce; between 1 and 4 of those couples could choose not to reproduce and all 4 would not be able to reproduce.

Can people really not see the differences here?

I'm gay, I don't want children, but I still want to marry some day.

Explain why the fúck am I not allowed to do so again?

lazybones32

eviltwin wrote: »

Why won't you answer the question?

They are equal in appearance but more info would be necessary to make a better judgement.

iwantmydinner

lazybones32 wrote: »

Where did I say marriage was a requirement for procreation?!

No, the argument is that a man and a woman can reproduce: most of the time they do this as a family - whether married or not. As in, they decide to have children, so there will be at least one parent and at least one child.

Civil marriage, Christian, Jew, Pagan marriage has the potential to produce offspring; unlike homosexual unions. Can you see the distinction that doesn't make them equal? Do you know what equality means?

You've said it yourself:

Marriage. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Making. Babies.

Now form an argument against same sex marriage that doesn't contain any references to procreation, babies, "unions", gametes, offspring, or reproduction, give us something logical to think about, and I guarantee we'll be all ears.

_Redzer_

iwantmydinner wrote: »

You've said it yourself:

Marriage. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Making. Babies.

Now form an argument against same sex marriage that doesn't contain any references to procreation, babies, "unions", gametes, offspring, or reproduction, give us something logical to think about, and I guarantee we'll be all ears.

It's the last we'll hear of him.

The always scatter after you destroy their weak as piss 'logic'.

lazybones32

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I'm gay, I don't want children, but I still want to marry some day.

Explain why the fúck am I not allowed to do so again?

Are you male or female?

Children are necessary for the continuation of the species and there needs to be 2.1 births for every death for the successful continuation of the Society (pay more taxes, care for an aging population whose life expectancy increases).

When John and Mary get married, they have the potential for procreating. Supposedly, having children within the context of a stable family unit (where Mom and Dad are present) is the best possible environment for raising children. In a marriage, the parents have supposedly committed to each other and are more stable and less-likely to part (I cannot supply scholarly links to prove this so I guess it's all bull****)

If you and your bf/gf get married...you cannot procreate; you cannot provide the ideal environment for raising children (unless men and women are the same and a man can raise a child in the exact same way a woman can...and a woman can give the exact same service as a dad can)
But you demand to be viewed as important to Society as 'John and Mary'? But you'll get the tax-credits...

I'm not too clued-in on what the current civil same-sex Rights are but your union can be recognised under Law and you can bequeath your stuff to your partner. No-one is stopping you wearing a ring, calling your other-half "hubby/wife"...ot the other trimmings that are associated.

Unless, this whole Marriage Equality is a stepping-stone to getting Adoption 'Rights'...

shruikan2553

lazybones32 wrote: »

Are you male or female?

Children are necessary for the continuation of the species and there needs to be 2.1 births for every death for the successful continuation of the Society (pay more taxes, care for an aging population whose life expectancy increases).

When John and Mary get married, they have the potential for procreating. Supposedly, having children within the context of a stable family unit (where Mom and Dad are present) is the best possible environment for raising children. In a marriage, the parents have supposedly committed to each other and are more stable and less-likely to part (I cannot supply scholarly links to prove this so I guess it's all bull****)

If you and your bf/gf get married...you cannot procreate; you cannot provide the ideal environment for raising children (unless men and women are the same and a man can raise a child in the exact same way a woman can...and a woman can give the exact same service as a dad can)
But you demand to be viewed as important to Society as 'John and Mary'? But you'll get the tax-credits...

I'm not too clued-in on what the current civil same-sex Rights are but your union can be recognised under Law and you can bequeath your stuff to your partner. No-one is stopping you wearing a ring, calling your other-half "hubby/wife"...ot the other trimmings that are associated.

Unless, this whole Marriage Equality is a stepping-stone to getting Adoption 'Rights'...

Are homosexual couples incapable of raising children? They may not be able to create a child themselves but there are other options of acquiring a child.

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

Are you male or female?

Children are necessary for the continuation of the species and there needs to be 2.1 births for every death for the successful continuation of the Society (pay more taxes, care for an aging population whose life expectancy increases).

When John and Mary get married, they have the potential for procreating. Supposedly, having children within the context of a stable family unit (where Mom and Dad are present) is the best possible environment for raising children. In a marriage, the parents have supposedly committed to each other and are more stable and less-likely to part (I cannot supply scholarly links to prove this so I guess it's all bull****)

If you and your bf/gf get married...you cannot procreate; you cannot provide the ideal environment for raising children (unless men and women are the same and a man can raise a child in the exact same way a woman can...and a woman can give the exact same service as a dad can)
But you demand to be viewed as important to Society as 'John and Mary'? But you'll get the tax-credits...

I'm not too clued-in on what the current civil same-sex Rights are but your union can be recognised under Law and you can bequeath your stuff to your partner. No-one is stopping you wearing a ring, calling your other-half "hubby/wife"...ot the other trimmings that are associated.

Unless, this whole Marriage Equality is a stepping-stone to getting Adoption 'Rights'...

This is just factually incorrect , I wonder is there any point in talking to you.You just ignore anything that doesn't suit your view.

And by the way gay - shock horror -people can already adopt. But is that your real fear ? Gay couples getting their hands on kids ?

_Redzer_

lazybones32 wrote: »

Are you male or female?

Children are necessary for the continuation of the species and there needs to be 2.1 births for every death for the successful continuation of the Society (pay more taxes, care for an aging population whose life expectancy increases).

When John and Mary get married, they have the potential for procreating. Supposedly, having children within the context of a stable family unit (where Mom and Dad are present) is the best possible environment for raising children. In a marriage, the parents have supposedly committed to each other and are more stable and less-likely to part (I cannot supply scholarly links to prove this so I guess it's all bull****)

If you and your bf/gf get married...you cannot procreate; you cannot provide the ideal environment for raising children (unless men and women are the same and a man can raise a child in the exact same way a woman can...and a woman can give the exact same service as a dad can)
But you demand to be viewed as important to Society as 'John and Mary'? But you'll get the tax-credits...

I'm not too clued-in on what the current civil same-sex Rights are but your union can be recognised under Law and you can bequeath your stuff to your partner. No-one is stopping you wearing a ring, calling your other-half "hubby/wife"...ot the other trimmings that are associated.

Unless, this whole Marriage Equality is a stepping-stone to getting Adoption 'Rights'...

How is my gender in any way relevant?

Marriage is NOT about procreation, otherwise infertile or couple without children would have their marriages voided -and that's not the case.

Also, you don't need to be married in order to have children, the massive trend in long term couples having children before marrying proves this. Once you marry, you don't magically become fertile and capable of having children like you seem to be painting.

Also, all major scientific sources say the only 'best environment' is two loving parents, no gender mentioned, so your assertion that a male/female couple is better is unfounded, untrue, nonsense.
-you're free to challenge me on this, but I want a peer-reviewed source saying otherwise. In which case, good luck finding one.

So yes, I am just as equal as John and Mary in every single regard. And you've done an incredibly piss poor attempt to justify your discriminatory bollox in keeping me down and undeserving of marriage.

Pro Hoc Vice

lazybones32 wrote: »

Are you male or female?

Children are necessary for the continuation of the species and there needs to be 2.1 births for every death for the successful continuation of the Society (pay more taxes, care for an aging population whose life expectancy increases).

When John and Mary get married, they have the potential for procreating. Supposedly, having children within the context of a stable family unit (where Mom and Dad are present) is the best possible environment for raising children. In a marriage, the parents have supposedly committed to each other and are more stable and less-likely to part (I cannot supply scholarly links to prove this so I guess it's all bull****)

If you and your bf/gf get married...you cannot procreate; you cannot provide the ideal environment for raising children (unless men and women are the same and a man can raise a child in the exact same way a woman can...and a woman can give the exact same service as a dad can)
But you demand to be viewed as important to Society as 'John and Mary'? But you'll get the tax-credits...

I'm not too clued-in on what the current civil same-sex Rights are but your union can be recognised under Law and you can bequeath your stuff to your partner. No-one is stopping you wearing a ring, calling your other-half "hubby/wife"...ot the other trimmings that are associated.

Unless, this whole Marriage Equality is a stepping-stone to getting Adoption 'Rights'...

There is no such thing as the ideal parents.

Your argument is simply it is best for a child to be reared by a man and women so best to leave it to them. Now a similar argument men are on average stronger than women, or faster than women don't think a one can say any women can run faster than Bolt or any women could go 10 rounds with Tyson. But does that mean women should not run the 100 meters or box or lift weights, does it mean that the top women in these fields are slower and weaker than all men. No it does not and that is the problem with looking at the problem the way you are. Many children are brought up in single families and do very well thank you as many children are brought up in married male and female family units and are messed up for life.

And adoption is a red herring if that is your issue say it out right, but considering how difficult adoption is for any applicant if a couple same sex or otherwise are deemed suitable who are you to deny any child a loving and nurturing home.

BTW it's not 2.1 births per death it's a birth rate of 2.1 per women as you rightly point out men can't have children.

lazybones32

iwantmydinner wrote: »

You've said it yourself:

Marriage. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Making. Babies.

Now form an argument against same sex marriage that doesn't contain any references to procreation, babies, "unions", gametes, offspring, or reproduction, give us something logical to think about, and I guarantee we'll be all ears.

So people don't want to get married and have children a.k.a. a Family?

You want me to form an argument without using the primary reason for holding that stance? My goodness, what logic you use! (Argue against ingesting sodium cyanide without using the basis that it will kill you and if you can't supply enough reasons then I will conclude that it is therefore a good thing to do)

Also, I didn't write what you said I did. That was your interpretation of it.

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

So people don't want to get married and have children a.k.a. a Family?

You want me to form an argument without using the primary reason for holding that stance? My goodness, what logic you use! (Argue against ingesting sodium cyanide without using the basis that it will kill you and if you can't supply enough reasons then I will conclude that it is therefore a good thing to do)

Also, I didn't write what you said I did. That was your interpretation of it.

Are you saying unmarried couples with children are not a family ?

shruikan2553

lazybones32 wrote: »

So people don't want to get married and have children a.k.a. a Family?

You want me to form an argument without using the primary reason for holding that stance? My goodness, what logic you use! (Argue against ingesting sodium cyanide without using the basis that it will kill you and if you can't supply enough reasons then I will conclude that it is therefore a good thing to do)

Also, I didn't write what you said I did. That was your interpretation of it.

Some do, you just decided they cant have a family because rubbing their genitals together doesnt make a child*

*Note: Do not need to be able to make a child if youre straight

lazybones32

eviltwin wrote: »

Gay couples also have the potential to produce a child just not with their partner. Its no different to any couple who can't conceive and need outside help.

There's only one parent there...the Law doesn't recognise step-parents as biological parents. I don't know a lot about the state of Irish surrogacy Laws but the homosexual couple needs a third-party to supply the basics...either an egg or sperm.

Either the woman will be fertilised by someone and the child will be hers and not her partners (who shares no genetic material) or one sperm of one man will fertilise the egg and the child will be his and not his partners.
Besides, as you well know, test-tube babies are an exception to the normal way children are conceived and is not 'natural practice'.

lazybones32

marienbad wrote: »

This is just factually incorrect , I wonder is there any point in talking to you.You just ignore anything that doesn't suit your view.

And by the way gay - shock horror -people can already adopt. But is that your real fear ? Gay couples getting their hands on kids ?

Be precise in highlighting what is "factually incorrect"?

eviltwin

lazybones32 wrote: »

There's only one parent there...the Law doesn't recognise step-parents as biological parents. I don't know a lot about the state of Irish surrogacy Laws but the homosexual couple needs a third-party to supply the basics...either an egg or sperm.

Either the woman will be fertilised by someone and the child will be hers and not her partners (who shares no genetic material) or one sperm of one man will fertilise the egg and the child will be his and not his partners.
Besides, as you well know, test-tube babies are an exception to the normal way children are conceived and is not 'natural practice'.

The laws surrounding family are backward, they don't cover anything but the traditional man/woman marriage and the children born within that set up. Its the law that needs changing, not the people in relationships that don't fit that model.

NuMarvel

lazybones32 wrote: »

Be precise in highlighting what is "factually incorrect"?

For one, that gay people can't provide an ideal environment to raise children, when research indicates otherwise.

That gay people can't already adopt, for another. This has already been covered in this and other threads.

And there's the overall conflation of marriage and procreation. John and Mary in your example either can or can't procreate, their marital status doesn't change that.

Is it your contention that if John and Mary know they can't procreate, they should be barred from marriage? If not, then you can't rationally use the same reason to deny marriage to gay couples.

lazybones32

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

There is no such thing as the ideal parents.

Your argument is simply it is best for a child to be reared by a man and women so best to leave it to them. Now a similar argument men are on average stronger than women, or faster than women don't think a one can say any women can run faster than Bolt or any women could go 10 rounds with Tyson. But does that mean women should not run the 100 meters or box or lift weights, does it mean that the top women in these fields are slower and weaker than all men. No it does not and that is the problem with looking at the problem the way you are. Many children are brought up in single families and do very well thank you as many children are brought up in married male and female family units and are messed up for life.

And adoption is a red herring if that is your issue say it out right, but considering how difficult adoption is for any applicant if a couple same sex or otherwise are deemed suitable who are you to deny any child a loving and nurturing home.

BTW it's not 2.1 births per death it's a birth rate of 2.1 per women as you rightly point out men can't have children.

Yes, but a man and woman in a loving committed relationship as the ideal environment for raising children isn't "my" view. I adopted it from others - psychologists, sociologists, teachers - but since I cannot provide references to show that this is the ideal environment, disregard as bull...

There are no perfect parents; lots of ideal and suitable people out there. Big difference between the ideal and perfection of the ideal.

Adoption is not a red-herring: there have been implications (people have implied) and it is a logical and apt progression.

marienbad

NuMarvel wrote: »

For one, that gay people can't provide an ideal environment to raise children, when research indicates otherwise.

That gay people can't already adopt, for another. This has already been covered in this and other threads.

And there's the overall conflation of marriage and procreation. John and Mary in your example either can or can't procreate, their marital status doesn't change that.

Is it your contention that if John and Mary know they can't procreate, they should be barred from marriage? If not, then you can't rationally use the same reason to deny marriage to gay couples.

Thanks for saving me the bother

_Redzer_

lazybones32 wrote: »

Yes, but a man and woman in a loving committed relationship as the ideal environment for raising children isn't "my" view. I adopted it from others - psychologists, sociologists, teachers - but since I cannot provide references to show that this is the ideal environment, disregard as bull...

There are no perfect parents; lots of ideal and suitable people out there. Big difference between the ideal and perfection of the ideal.

Adoption is not a red-herring: there have been implications (people have implied) and it is a logical and apt progression.

If your ideal is shown to be wrong, even in the face of mountains of evidence to counter your view, then it is idiotic to hang onto it and even defend it.

I might think mixed race parents are not the ideal and be against them because I think they wouldn't be as good as white parents, because that's *my* ideal, even if I was 100% scientifically wrong. I'd just be an ignorant, prejudiced moron.


Btw, read over the thread to find all the links to evidence which destroys your viewpoint entirely.

I would, but I'm lazy and not responsible for your education.

eviltwin

lazybones32 wrote: »

Yes, but a man and woman in a loving committed relationship as the ideal environment for raising children isn't "my" view. I adopted it from others - psychologists, sociologists, teachers - but since I cannot provide references to show that this is the ideal environment, disregard as bull...

There are no perfect parents; lots of ideal and suitable people out there. Big difference between the ideal and perfection of the ideal.

Adoption is not a red-herring: there have been implications (people have implied) and it is a logical and apt progression.

Adoption is a red herring. There were only a handful of non family adoptions in Ireland last year, any gay couple wanting to adopt a child will have to be assessed in the same way as a straight couple, they don't jump the queue.

Most adoptions are inter family, a child will be adopted by its uncle/aunt/grandparent etc. Its better for everyone that kids stay within their family unit and if the best person to offer that child a home is their gay uncle or aunt then why would anyone insist they are removed and placed with a straight couple? Gay people can also foster so if a foster child is placed for adoption doesn't it make sense they stay in the home they have become used to? Doing otherwise makes no sense.

NuMarvel

lazybones32 wrote: »

Adoption is not a red-herring: there have been implications (people have implied) and it is a logical and apt progression.

It is a red herring because it is not a progression, it can already happen. Anyone who has done any proper research on this would know this.

Nodin

lazybones32 wrote: »

Yes, but a man and woman in a loving committed relationship as the ideal environment for raising children isn't "my" view. I adopted it from others - psychologists, sociologists, teachers - but since I cannot provide references to show that this is the ideal environment, disregard as bull...

There are no perfect parents; lots of ideal and suitable people out there. Big difference between the ideal and perfection of the ideal.

Adoption is not a red-herring: there have been implications (people have implied) and it is a logical and apt progression.

What have you against gay people?

iwantmydinner

lazybones32 wrote: »

So people don't want to get married and have children a.k.a. a Family?

You want me to form an argument without using the primary reason for holding that stance? My goodness, what logic you use! (Argue against ingesting sodium cyanide without using the basis that it will kill you and if you can't supply enough reasons then I will conclude that it is therefore a good thing to do)

Also, I didn't write what you said I did. That was your interpretation of it.

But you don't need to be married to have or be part of a family.

My goodness, your logic is non-existent!

aloyisious

lazybones32 wrote: »

What unique 'benefits'? The propagation of the species. The socialization and formation of those children within a family, with the ideal that they become happy, fulfilled, law-abiding members of Society. No homosexual union can ever produce children - ever. (Don't waste time by mentioning IVF et al because that uses male and female material, not solely male/male or female/female) Homosexual unions cannot be treated equally as heterosexual unions for this reason alone...because they are simply not equal. (Were you born of Man and Woman?)

If you are arguing along the lines of the quality of up-bringing, love shown to the child, etc; this is a different topic to homosexual unions being granted Legal Equality and Status to heterosexual Marriage.

The information exists in reality and in the virtual world. You have an Encyclopedia at your fingertips and you can research for yourself - like I did - to get the knowledge you seek. I'm not concerned at whether you believe what I write or not; I've supplied information and it's your decision to accept or reject. This is not the debate forum, nor is it a Scientific Journal whereby I must supply references and scholarly links.

.............................................................................................

In Para 1 of your argument above on the benefits of marriage between two heterosexuals over that of marriage between two homosexuals, you mention children and their bringing-up, linking them with marriage (The propagation of the species. The socialization and formation of those children within a family, with the ideal that they become happy, fulfilled, law-abiding members of Society) -- then in Para 2 you have this... (If you are arguing along the lines of the quality of up-bringing, love shown to the child, etc; this is a different topic to homosexual unions being granted Legal Equality and Status to heterosexual Marriage)

I'm curious as to how you don't see how your "argument" in both para's are at odds with each other, the first is all about marriage and propagation and the children and the second clearly states that the issue is about homosexual unions being granted Legal Equality and Status to heterosexual Marriage, a different topic to the upbringing of children. You link children as part and parcel with marriage in Para 1 and decry the same link in Para 2.

EDIT... I've just seen how you use the term "Homosexual Unions" in your Para 2 argument. I, and other homosexuals and heterosexuals are NOT ARGUING about homosexual unions being granted Legal Equality and Status to heterosexual Marriage, it's about homosexual couples being given the same civil rights available to heterosexual couples. Do you mean homosexual unions (some pre-existing legal state) or homosexual couples?