4 ms·

They aren't equal. They can never have children naturally. They should have equal rights in terms of their union, but in terms of procreation and furthering th

by axod 18y ago

They aren't equal. They can never have children naturally. They should have equal rights in terms of their union, but in terms of procreation and furthering the species etc, how can they? Racism doesn't really have such an argument does it. I just don't see why the word matters all that much. Surely as long as you are equal in the eyes of the law, why not have a different word to mean same sex marriage? Then if you say "joe is married" you don't have to ask "to a woman? or another man?".

Retric 18y ago
Two women could have children from their own DNA with a little genetic engineering or just cloning. Plenty of heterosexual coupples can't have children do you want to forbid them getting married? How about if they decide not to can they get married? PS: I honestly just get creeped out when people start talking about labels as if a word by it's self means something.
- axod 18y ago
  A father and his daughter could probably have a healthy child with a bit of help from science, but that wouldn't make it a good idea would it.
  - Retric 18y ago
    Ok, that's creepy, but if they are 30 and 50 what's the problem? My point is just because I don't like something does not mean I get to stop people who are not hurting me from doing it. There was some story about people who where both adopted got married and then found out they where siblings. And yea it's creepy, but while I would be ok forbidding them from having children (for the public good) I don't see the value in forcing them to break up. And, even forbidding something on genetic grounds becomes a slippery slope problem because it's one step from their to sterilizing people.
- redrobot5050 18y ago
  Yeah. I'm all about the 'traditional marriage' myself. You know, where my lord's regent picks my wife from one of the other serf's, pays her father a small dowry, lets my lord enact Prima Nocte, and then unloads her onto me, where she's my property to do what I wish with. (NOT).
redrobot5050 18y ago
So should my parents marriage be invalidated, seeing as my mother has undergone menopause, and thus, they can "never have children naturally" anymore? What about anorexia survivors? Malnutrition plays hell with uterine linings. Should we deny them the right to marriage? Is an eating disorder more or less of a 'a choice' than homosexuality in your eyes? Alan Turing was gay, and never had children. He developed the code-breaking machines that allowed the Allies to win world war 2. Don't think for a second that Churchill being able to read Hitler's mail before Hitler read it didn't "tip the balance". So it sounds like gay people can further the species without procreation. In fact, I'd argue that smart people (gay OR straight) are better off not having children until their career has 'peaked'. For the truly brilliant -- the Turings and Einsteins of the world -- a child is not going to be "their greatest accomplishment". Seriously, a gay man basically did more for Western civilization than you or I or any Veteran still alive has. He was shamed into killing himself because of his sexual orientation. You'd really object to his happiness? sigh. I'm going to stop here before I pull a Godwin.
- axod 18y ago
  You're starting to distort everything I said. I don't care if gay people wish to have even more rights than me. Fine. Just don't mess about with a word that has been defined clearly for a long time.
  - redrobot5050 18y ago
    They're NOT messing with a word that's been defined for clearly a long time. I don't think they'd define the pleas for equality before the law to be considered "messing" or "trouble making". You DO realize that the definition of marriage has changed several times, right? Women are no longer property owned by their fathers until transferred into the possession of another Man. Being of different race no longer means you can't get married, either. Furthermore, we re-define words all the time in the computer field. Think about how the definition of "fast" gets redefined every 18 months to to years. And how what was "fast" is now "slow". Hands down you cannot string a rational argument against gay marriage because there isn't one. Its based on cultural fears, and intolerance. You're on the losing side of history, next to the Mississippi state police that physically assaulted my father and his friends for helping black people register to vote in early 60s. Next to KKK. And the confederates, and so on. Have fun explaining to your children or your children's children, who will grow up with gay marriage, how you were the bigot.
astine 18y ago
'Equal,' or 'identical?' The former implies an equation in terms of absolute 'goodness,' while the later merely implies a concurrence of kind. If you are going to rag on same sex 'marriage' as not being truly 'marriage' for any of the reasons you state, then you also have to discount many heterosexual 'marriages' as well. The problem is that for one half of our society, the meaning of the term has changed radically over the past century and for the other half it hasn't changed a wit. As a result, the laws have grown confusing and contradictory and there is no longer any easy way to reconcile the terms.
natch 18y ago
Interracial couples can never have pure-race children naturally. So would you say that makes them different enough that they should not be eligible for marriage?
dgordon 18y ago
So instead of marriage, let's call it...butt-buddies. Besides, why do you care so much whether Joe is married to a woman, a man, a genderless entity, or no one at all?

by axod 18y ago

Retric 18y ago

Two women could have children from their own DNA with a little genetic engineering or just cloning. Plenty of heterosexual coupples can't have children do you want to forbid them getting married? How about if they decide not to can they get married? PS: I honestly just get creeped out when people start talking about labels as if a word by it's self means something.

axod 18y ago
A father and his daughter could probably have a healthy child with a bit of help from science, but that wouldn't make it a good idea would it.
- Retric 18y ago
  Ok, that's creepy, but if they are 30 and 50 what's the problem? My point is just because I don't like something does not mean I get to stop people who are not hurting me from doing it. There was some story about people who where both adopted got married and then found out they where siblings. And yea it's creepy, but while I would be ok forbidding them from having children (for the public good) I don't see the value in forcing them to break up. And, even forbidding something on genetic grounds becomes a slippery slope problem because it's one step from their to sterilizing people.
redrobot5050 18y ago
Yeah. I'm all about the 'traditional marriage' myself. You know, where my lord's regent picks my wife from one of the other serf's, pays her father a small dowry, lets my lord enact Prima Nocte, and then unloads her onto me, where she's my property to do what I wish with. (NOT).

redrobot5050 18y ago

So should my parents marriage be invalidated, seeing as my mother has undergone menopause, and thus, they can "never have children naturally" anymore? What about anorexia survivors? Malnutrition plays hell with uterine linings. Should we deny them the right to marriage? Is an eating disorder more or less of a 'a choice' than homosexuality in your eyes? Alan Turing was gay, and never had children. He developed the code-breaking machines that allowed the Allies to win world war 2. Don't think for a second that Churchill being able to read Hitler's mail before Hitler read it didn't "tip the balance". So it sounds like gay people can further the species without procreation. In fact, I'd argue that smart people (gay OR straight) are better off not having children until their career has 'peaked'. For the truly brilliant -- the Turings and Einsteins of the world -- a child is not going to be "their greatest accomplishment". Seriously, a gay man basically did more for Western civilization than you or I or any Veteran still alive has. He was shamed into killing himself because of his sexual orientation. You'd really object to his happiness? sigh. I'm going to stop here before I pull a Godwin.

axod 18y ago
You're starting to distort everything I said. I don't care if gay people wish to have even more rights than me. Fine. Just don't mess about with a word that has been defined clearly for a long time.
- redrobot5050 18y ago
  They're NOT messing with a word that's been defined for clearly a long time. I don't think they'd define the pleas for equality before the law to be considered "messing" or "trouble making". You DO realize that the definition of marriage has changed several times, right? Women are no longer property owned by their fathers until transferred into the possession of another Man. Being of different race no longer means you can't get married, either. Furthermore, we re-define words all the time in the computer field. Think about how the definition of "fast" gets redefined every 18 months to to years. And how what was "fast" is now "slow". Hands down you cannot string a rational argument against gay marriage because there isn't one. Its based on cultural fears, and intolerance. You're on the losing side of history, next to the Mississippi state police that physically assaulted my father and his friends for helping black people register to vote in early 60s. Next to KKK. And the confederates, and so on. Have fun explaining to your children or your children's children, who will grow up with gay marriage, how you were the bigot.

astine 18y ago

'Equal,' or 'identical?' The former implies an equation in terms of absolute 'goodness,' while the later merely implies a concurrence of kind. If you are going to rag on same sex 'marriage' as not being truly 'marriage' for any of the reasons you state, then you also have to discount many heterosexual 'marriages' as well. The problem is that for one half of our society, the meaning of the term has changed radically over the past century and for the other half it hasn't changed a wit. As a result, the laws have grown confusing and contradictory and there is no longer any easy way to reconcile the terms.

natch 18y ago

Interracial couples can never have pure-race children naturally. So would you say that makes them different enough that they should not be eligible for marriage?

dgordon 18y ago

So instead of marriage, let's call it...butt-buddies. Besides, why do you care so much whether Joe is married to a woman, a man, a genderless entity, or no one at all?