4 ms·

Saying "a same-sex couple should be allowed all the privileges of a married couple, but please don't call it 'marriage'" is like saying "a woman should be allow

• axod 18y ago
  No, it's not. Female doctors can carry out the same tasks as Male doctors (Give or take). Gay couples cannot carry out the same tasks as Heterosexual couples.
  • swombat 18y ago
    Of course they can. Unless you mean that the sanctity of marriage is based on the ability of one party to stick their thing in the other and produce a baby. What about a marriage between a man and a woman who adopt a child? Are they allowed to be married? Or are you implying that heterosexual couples raise their children better than homosexual couples? That'd be a pretty tough claim to support.
    • axod 18y ago
      Not all heterosexual couples can conceive, but a large number can. 0 homosexual couples can conceive. I'd also say yes heterosexuals are sure to raise kids better. What could be better than getting both a woman and a mans point of view on the world? :/ Wouldn't you worry if you sent your son to a school where all the teachers were women? I'd say he would be missing out on something.
      • swombat 18y ago
        0 infertile couples can conceive. Should infertile couples not be allowed to marry? 0 post-menopausal women can conceive. Should post-menopausal women not be allowed to marry?
        • kingkongrevenge 18y ago
          > Should infertile couples not be allowed to marry? It's not really a marriage, so maybe it should be called something else, just as with homosexual civil unions. But of course there's no way to determine infertility, so it's not practical. It's very practical for homosexuals, though.
          • scott_s 18y ago
            I think you're the one here who is redefining marriage.
          • sethg 18y ago
            If the purpose of marriage is to encourage procreation, then heterosexually couples who take advantage of the legal benefits of marriage (tax deductions, hospital visitation, Social Security survivor's benefits, etc., etc., etc.) without procreating are freeloaders. So let's amend the laws so that only a heterosexual couple that has produced a child can take advantage of those benefits. (Not adoption, and not artificial insemination by a third-party donor! That's cheating!) There's a very practical suggestion. If I lived in California I'd be tempted to put it on a referendum and see how many votes it loses by.
      • azanar 18y ago
        "I'd also say yes heterosexuals are sure to raise kids better. What could be better than getting both a woman and a mans point of view on the world? :/" How about the points of view of multiple women and multiple men? You make the mistake here of assuming that there only are two fundamental points of view, delineated by gender, that people are exposed to. By that argument, it should be trivial to map gender to things like political party, religion, or any of a number of other perspectives? That we don't see this suggests your premise is wrong.
      • DaniFong 18y ago
        What do you mean by raising kids better? Single parents and same sex couples can both raise kids extraordinarily well; better than many heterosexual couples. And if this is a statement about averages, it is already generally agreed that restricting individual rights based on the properties of a group are immoral and wrong.
    • kingkongrevenge 18y ago
      > Unless you mean that the sanctity of marriage is based on the ability of one party to stick their thing in the other and produce a baby. I would say exactly that. I would even go so far as to say that a marriage where it is known before hand that the heterosexual couple is infertile is not a "real" marriage. Of course the whole point of marriage is the biological production of the next generation.
      • Jasber 18y ago
        > I would say exactly that. I would even go so far as to say that a marriage where it is known before hand that the heterosexual couple is infertile is not a "real" marriage. Wow. So a couple that chooses to be married yet chooses no children is also not a "real" marriage?
        • kingkongrevenge 18y ago
          I would say that's so.
          • scott_s 18y ago
            Fantastic. I'll go tell three married couples I know that their marriages are invalid.
            • kingkongrevenge 18y ago
              Not invalid, just inferior to "real" marriages, which produce biological children. Again, this is a critical distinction between liberals and conservatives. Liberals are obsessed with making sure everyone feels equal and unoffended. Conservatives do not shy away from the reality that not everyone and everything are of equal value. From the perspective of society a biologically fruitful marriage is a superior thing and deserves special status. Sorry if that hurts feelings.
              • scott_s 18y ago
  • natch 18y ago
    This is just sad. Go back to reddit, please. Just because interracial couples can't produce pure-bred babies in the same way as same-race couples, and just as same-sex, infertile, and "mature" (beyond the healthy child bearing years) couples cannot conceive children together in the same way as some people... doesn't mean a tyranny of the majority should have the ability to take away their civil rights.