Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[Seawytch]

Yes Pop, we have sex, we have relationships and we have children. We also have legal civil marriage in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Our inability to procreate with each other, is not a consideration in whether or not we achieve marriage equality. Your strawman is irrelevant and your analogy way off. It is more like you wish to deny me a license because my car runs on something other than gasoline.

It may not be a consideration for you, but it is a consideration for the voters and for rational people. The is no rational basis to extend marriage to gay couples. None.

Actually, the rational judges are ruling against what voters and legislators did. Voters have changed their minds too since those initiatives passed.

Civil Rights should never be put to majority vote.

Those aren't rational judges. They are partisan hacks. There is no civil right for gay people to marry. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and that's all it will ever be. So called "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

Riiiggght...despite the FACT that judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans have ruled for marriage equality..."procreation boy" calls them partisan.

Name the judges appointed by Republicans who have ruled against state constitutional amendments outlawing "gay marriage."

Republicans Are Driving the Momentum for Gay Marriage - Atlantic Mobile

I believe @WorldWatcher has posted a full list somewhere.

 

[elektra]

Sad, I think it is beyond belief that people refuse to allow children to have a voice, children who are to be adopted.

A decent society would guarantee a mom and dad to orphaned children.

It is simple, a child learns from a healthy, natural family. A child needs a man and woman to learn. Sure, many overcome single parent families, but nothing beats Christmas with parents and grandparents who have literally given birth to the family.

Homosexuals and the Activists will never know the truth, for they have chosen and live a life in which they never see the intricate dynamics lived between father, mother and the children.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Yes Pop, we have sex, we have relationships and we have children. We also have legal civil marriage in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Our inability to procreate with each other, is not a consideration in whether or not we achieve marriage equality. Your strawman is irrelevant and your analogy way off. It is more like you wish to deny me a license because my car runs on something other than gasoline.

It may not be a consideration for you, but it is a consideration for the voters and for rational people. The is no rational basis to extend marriage to gay couples. None.

Actually, the rational judges are ruling against what voters and legislators did. Voters have changed their minds too since those initiatives passed.

Civil Rights should never be put to majority vote.

Those aren't rational judges. They are partisan hacks. There is no civil right for gay people to marry. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and that's all it will ever be. So called "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

Riiiggght...despite the FACT that judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans have ruled for marriage equality..."procreation boy" calls them partisan.

Name the judges appointed by Republicans who have ruled against state constitutional amendments outlawing "gay marriage."

You lose on that front. They're there. Understand what happens in the realm of elite culture. It's dominated by facile liberalism. Republican judges are immersed in the culture of elites, liberals throw fantastic cocktail parties and Republican judges like to fit in. Dissent from liberalism is tolerated on issues like crime and punishment but on social issues any Republican who rejects the liberal framing is shunned.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Marvelous, Bripat and Rikurzhen are now positing that marriage should be only allowed if parties pass a fertility test (which most GLBT folks can do btw) and that marriage has always been a prerequisite to getting pregnant. Marvelous.

Explain the benefits to you, a single person, when two strangers get married. Why should you subsidize their marriage?

 

[bendog]

Sad, I think it is beyond belief that people refuse to allow children to have a voice, children who are to be adopted.

A decent society would guarantee a mom and dad to orphaned children.

It is simple, a child learns from a healthy, natural family. A child needs a man and woman to learn. Sure, many overcome single parent families, but nothing beats Christmas with parents and grandparents who have literally given birth to the family.

Homosexuals and the Activists will never know the truth, for they have chosen and live a life in which they never see the intricate dynamics lived between father, mother and the children.

If the American psychological association, psychiatric association, medical association and pediatricans agreed with you, I might as well.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Oh, so you can cite when procreation was EVER a requirement for a marriage license? When did this requirement ever exist and when did it go away?

It was a natural outcome of being married throughout all of human history up until the invention of the birth control pill.

There was a very high signal to noise ratio that the few infertile couples who did get married or the old couples who remarried didn't erode the justification for the institution. That's why there is no test.

Times have changed but the institution is behind the times. There is no valid reason for society to grant benefits to a man and a woman who get married solely because they love each other and then don't have children. This is now becoming more common due to birth control. Society gets absolutely no benefit from a childless married couple.

Liberals would be the first to object if any politician suggest imposing a fertility test as a condition of getting married.

Oh, I believe most thinking people, liberal or conservative, would balk at such a requirement.

Nevertheless, that's exactly what all the homos and their apologists in this forum are suggesting.

Be honest. Those that are suggesting it are responding to your statement that marriage is between two adults that can reproduce...as you said in another thread. So whereas it is ridiculous to suggest that a fertility test should be part of getting a license to marry, it is a response to an equally ridiculous statement.

You don't need to construct a fertility test bar for marriage. People can still get married but they get absolutely no social or legal benefits from doing so. After all, marriage is about love, right? Surely it's not about getting benefits. Why does society care that two people love each other? The legal and social benefits only kick in when kids are born. Now divorce becomes compliciated. Before kids, there is no community property, no nothing, no legal significince to marriage. After kids, then husband and wife can be on the same medical plan, have inheritance rights, have community property, etc. This all kicks in because marriage is now about MORE than just love.

 

[bendog]

Marvelous, Bripat and Rikurzhen are now positing that marriage should be only allowed if parties pass a fertility test (which most GLBT folks can do btw) and that marriage has always been a prerequisite to getting pregnant. Marvelous.

Explain the benefits to you, a single person, when two strangers get married. Why should you subsidize their marriage?

I fail to see your logic. I'm not single, but that's beside the point. All of us benefit from people procreating because society needs new workers. But the social/legal concept of marriage is some kind of familial relationship stabilizes society. I think that's the basic concept. Even if "a union" does not produce kids, society protects the union with econ benefits. Whether its true that society gets this stability, or not .... that's not up to me, but that's the basis for society granting economic benefit to married partners.

If someone argues those beneifts should only be for hetero people, then it's their burden to show a rational reason why to exclude gays. Procreation is not, because some gay and lesbians do procreate, and not all heteros procreate.

 

[bendog]

It was a natural outcome of being married throughout all of human history up until the invention of the birth control pill.

There was a very high signal to noise ratio that the few infertile couples who did get married or the old couples who remarried didn't erode the justification for the institution. That's why there is no test.

Times have changed but the institution is behind the times. There is no valid reason for society to grant benefits to a man and a woman who get married solely because they love each other and then don't have children. This is now becoming more common due to birth control. Society gets absolutely no benefit from a childless married couple.

Liberals would be the first to object if any politician suggest imposing a fertility test as a condition of getting married.

Oh, I believe most thinking people, liberal or conservative, would balk at such a requirement.

Nevertheless, that's exactly what all the homos and their apologists in this forum are suggesting.

Be honest. Those that are suggesting it are responding to your statement that marriage is between two adults that can reproduce...as you said in another thread. So whereas it is ridiculous to suggest that a fertility test should be part of getting a license to marry, it is a response to an equally ridiculous statement.

You don't need to construct a fertility test bar for marriage. People can still get married but they get absolutely no social or legal benefits from doing so. After all, marriage is about love, right? Surely it's not about getting benefits. Now divorce becomes compliciated. Before kids, there is no community property, no nothing, no legal significince to marriage. After kids, then husband and wife can be on the same medical plan, have inheritance rights, have community property, etc. This all kicks in because marriage is now about MORE than just love.

 

[elektra]

Sad, I think it is beyond belief that people refuse to allow children to have a voice, children who are to be adopted.

A decent society would guarantee a mom and dad to orphaned children.

It is simple, a child learns from a healthy, natural family. A child needs a man and woman to learn. Sure, many overcome single parent families, but nothing beats Christmas with parents and grandparents who have literally given birth to the family.

Homosexuals and the Activists will never know the truth, for they have chosen and live a life in which they never see the intricate dynamics lived between father, mother and the children.

If the American psychological association, psychiatric association, medical association and pediatricans agreed with you, I might as well.

You do not know what these people think. They all agree with me.
And again, if someone looks to a study to make decision about the proper development of children, it's obvious that person has not the knowledge or experience raising children to make such extreme decisions for children.

Let children speak, not researchers accredited by government.

 

[bendog]

Rikurzhen, you posted "Why does society care that two people love each other? The legal and social benefits only kick in when kids are born." That's not correct. There are economic benefits to marriage for childless people in terms of employment benefits, social security, health care decision making ..... This was actually the basis for striking down DOMA, and there was no mention there of kids.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sad, I think it is beyond belief that people refuse to allow children to have a voice, children who are to be adopted.

A decent society would guarantee a mom and dad to orphaned children.

It is simple, a child learns from a healthy, natural family. A child needs a man and woman to learn. Sure, many overcome single parent families, but nothing beats Christmas with parents and grandparents who have literally given birth to the family.

Homosexuals and the Activists will never know the truth, for they have chosen and live a life in which they never see the intricate dynamics lived between father, mother and the children.

If the American psychological association, psychiatric association, medical association and pediatricans agreed with you, I might as well.

You do not know what these people think.
And again, if someone looks to a study to make decision about the proper development of children, it's obvious that person has not the knowledge or experience raising children to make such extreme decisions for children.

Let children speak, not researchers accredited by government.

There we go no one can be a parent till their children give their parents permission. Yeah no problem with that plan.

 

[bendog]

Sad, I think it is beyond belief that people refuse to allow children to have a voice, children who are to be adopted.

A decent society would guarantee a mom and dad to orphaned children.

It is simple, a child learns from a healthy, natural family. A child needs a man and woman to learn. Sure, many overcome single parent families, but nothing beats Christmas with parents and grandparents who have literally given birth to the family.

Homosexuals and the Activists will never know the truth, for they have chosen and live a life in which they never see the intricate dynamics lived between father, mother and the children.

If the American psychological association, psychiatric association, medical association and pediatricans agreed with you, I might as well.

You do not know what these people think.
And again, if someone looks to a study to make decision about the proper development of children, it's obvious that person has not the knowledge or experience raising children to make such extreme decisions for children.

Let children speak, not researchers accredited by government.

Well, there are kids of gay parents who think their childhood was great. Legally, there has to be scientifically validated evidence. And the APAs and AMA are not govt tools.

 

[RKMBrown]

Rikurzhen, you posted "Why does society care that two people love each other? The legal and social benefits only kick in when kids are born." That's not correct. There are economic benefits to marriage for childless people in terms of employment benefits, social security, health care decision making ..... This was actually the basis for striking down DOMA, and there was no mention there of kids.

To be frank I've never understood why single people and unmarried couples and have not won a class action suit and SCOTUS ruling forcing the feds end their economic bias for married couples.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Marvelous, Bripat and Rikurzhen are now positing that marriage should be only allowed if parties pass a fertility test (which most GLBT folks can do btw) and that marriage has always been a prerequisite to getting pregnant. Marvelous.

Explain the benefits to you, a single person, when two strangers get married. Why should you subsidize their marriage?

I fail to see your logic. I'm not single, but that's beside the point. All of us benefit from people procreating because society needs new workers.

That's a simple formulation but fundamentally correct. Good enough for debate to build upon. Childless married couples don't aid in furtherance of that mission.

But the social/legal concept of marriage is some kind of familial relationship stabilizes society. I think that's the basic concept.

The widowed father and his divorced daughter are doing more for societal stability than two DINKs. Why can't they get married? More importantly, why should you, a (pretend) single person, subsidize the marriage of the two DINKs?

Even if "a union" does not produce kids, society protects the union with econ benefits. Whether its true that society gets this stability, or not .... that's not up to me, but that's the basis for society granting economic benefit to married partners.

Ref, I need a call here. Bendog is pointing to a societal arrangement for why society extends benefits to married couples which was developed when marriage was almost synonymous with having children and now he claims that the benefit exists for marriage qua marriage, where children are irrelevant to the definition. The associations of marriage, the fuller meaning, has changed over time. It's kind of like this, isn't it Ref:

The Spanish-American War has been over for more than 100 years, and now so is the tax imposed in 1898 to help fund it. As of Tuesday, all phone companies selling long-distance phone service are legally required to eliminate the 3 percent federal excise tax on long-distance service, which had been established in 1898 as a luxury tax on wealthy Americans who owned telephones​

What was the justification for the tax after the war was over? Tax and war were casually linked. The war ended, so too did the justification for the tax. When the ramifications and expectations of marriage change, then so should social conditions attached to it.

 

[bendog]

Rikurzhen, you posted "Why does society care that two people love each other? The legal and social benefits only kick in when kids are born." That's not correct. There are economic benefits to marriage for childless people in terms of employment benefits, social security, health care decision making ..... This was actually the basis for striking down DOMA, and there was no mention there of kids.

To be frank I've never understood why single people and unmarried couples and have not won a class action suit and SCOTUS ruling forcing the feds end their economic bias for married couples.

Yeah, I think it stems from Judges just not wanting to go down the road of seeing what empirical evidence supports finding marriage gives some stabilizing effect. HOWEVER, look at the effect of LBJ's war on poverty allowing single mothers to not either starve or find some private charity. Moynihan predicted we'd destroy the black family, and to a large degree we did.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Rikurzhen, you posted "Why does society care that two people love each other? The legal and social benefits only kick in when kids are born." That's not correct. There are economic benefits to marriage for childless people in terms of employment benefits, social security, health care decision making ..... This was actually the basis for striking down DOMA, and there was no mention there of kids.

I apologize for not being clear. What I wrote was about how laws SHOULD be. Those economic benefits to marriage should not exist for couples without kids, for after all, marriage is about love. Society doesn't benefit when you love your spouse. Society benefits when you sacrifice and raise kids.

 

[elektra]

Sad, I think it is beyond belief that people refuse to allow children to have a voice, children who are to be adopted.

A decent society would guarantee a mom and dad to orphaned children.

It is simple, a child learns from a healthy, natural family. A child needs a man and woman to learn. Sure, many overcome single parent families, but nothing beats Christmas with parents and grandparents who have literally given birth to the family.

Homosexuals and the Activists will never know the truth, for they have chosen and live a life in which they never see the intricate dynamics lived between father, mother and the children.

If the American psychological association, psychiatric association, medical association and pediatricans agreed with you, I might as well.

You do not know what these people think.
And again, if someone looks to a study to make decision about the proper development of children, it's obvious that person has not the knowledge or experience raising children to make such extreme decisions for children.

Let children speak, not researchers accredited by government.

Well, there are kids of gay parents who think their childhood was great. Legally, there has to be scientifically validated evidence. And the APAs and AMA are not govt tools.

Sad, I think it is beyond belief that people refuse to allow children to have a voice, children who are to be adopted.

A decent society would guarantee a mom and dad to orphaned children.

It is simple, a child learns from a healthy, natural family. A child needs a man and woman to learn. Sure, many overcome single parent families, but nothing beats Christmas with parents and grandparents who have literally given birth to the family.

Homosexuals and the Activists will never know the truth, for they have chosen and live a life in which they never see the intricate dynamics lived between father, mother and the children.

If the American psychological association, psychiatric association, medical association and pediatricans agreed with you, I might as well.

You do not know what these people think.
And again, if someone looks to a study to make decision about the proper development of children, it's obvious that person has not the knowledge or experience raising children to make such extreme decisions for children.

Let children speak, not researchers accredited by government.

Well, there are kids of gay parents who think their childhood was great. Legally, there has to be scientifically validated evidence. And the APAs and AMA are not govt tools.

There is no, "scientifically validated evidence", that children will choose two men in a homosexual relationship as parents.

So thank you for validating my post while destroying your own.

 

[bendog]

Rikurzhen, marriage has never been premised upon procreation. Historically, marriage was solemnized by religion, though we've become more secular. I think all Christian demomination marriage rites have some provision for bless this union and any children the Lord sees fit to bestow. Your premise is that procreation has always been tied to marriage. First, that's historically Wrong. Most got kids, but if you didn't, Christians (and Jews) didn't base divorce upon that. Second, even if it was true marriage historically was premised upon procreation, you'd be proving nothing because .... wait for it.... wait for it .... the gays and lesbians find ways to have kids.

 

[bendog]

Rikurzhen, you posted "Why does society care that two people love each other? The legal and social benefits only kick in when kids are born." That's not correct. There are economic benefits to marriage for childless people in terms of employment benefits, social security, health care decision making ..... This was actually the basis for striking down DOMA, and there was no mention there of kids.

I apologize for not being clear. What I wrote was about how laws SHOULD be. Those economic benefits to marriage should not exist for couples without kids, for after all, marriage is about love. Society doesn't benefit when you love your spouse. Society benefits when you sacrifice and raise kids.

Well, ok. But the laws exist. If laws only conveyed economic rights to child rearing couples, or laws conveyed no benefits at all, you'd maybe have a point. But that's not the law, and I really don't see any changes occurring.

 

[bripat9643]

Sad, I think it is beyond belief that people refuse to allow children to have a voice, children who are to be adopted.

A decent society would guarantee a mom and dad to orphaned children.

It is simple, a child learns from a healthy, natural family. A child needs a man and woman to learn. Sure, many overcome single parent families, but nothing beats Christmas with parents and grandparents who have literally given birth to the family.

Homosexuals and the Activists will never know the truth, for they have chosen and live a life in which they never see the intricate dynamics lived between father, mother and the children.

If the American psychological association, psychiatric association, medical association and pediatricans agreed with you, I might as well.

Who cares what they agree with? They're nothing but a gang of political hacks. Their official positions on this issue have nothing to do with scientific or medical facts. They have to do with currying favor with the federal government.