Bush Urges Congress to Pass Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage

[Arrian]

First of all, how does one define a 'stable relationship?' For me I would say something that lasts 30 years, long enough to have a few kids and watch them grow up together. The ideal would be that the husband and wife stay faithful to one another in their marriage throughout this period.

By that measure, how many gay relationships are stable?

How many hetero relationships are stable? "Relationships" now, not just marriages! We all know that ~50% of hetero marriages fall apart, and that doesn't even count ones that had some cheating going on but the marriage was salvaged somehow... but even that's not a fair comparison.

By saying "Gay relationships" you include every one-night stand along with every stable long-term partnership. If you look at all hetero relationships, you won't find much stability either. Comparing hetero marriages to all gay relationships is comparing apples to oranges.

The gays who want to get married are the very ones who are seeking what heteros seek when they get married. And I'd expect a similar failure rate.

So, as usual, your argument is bunk.

-Arrian

[Lorizael]

Whoa. What the. I hit the reply with quote button and your post was different. Damn fast edit.

[Arrian]

[SlowwHand]

What his significant other says. DAMN, that was fast.

[Arrian]

Your mom likes it that way.



-Arrian

[Lorizael]

*blink blink*

What happened to the maturity level?

[Arrian]

Sloww happens.



-Arrian

[Lorizael]

Come on, people, let's get back on track. Someone start insulting gay people.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I am making an argument from reason based on principles that I think are relatively simple and straightforward. The unions are fundamentally different from one another as evidenced by the fact that one can produce kids, the others cannot.

And like always... I have to repeat... Not all marriages have the intent of having children. What is the difference between a gay marriage, and a couple who can't or won't have children? You have never had a problem with the latter, so why have a problem with the first?

You have go stop using this argument unless you go on record saying that only couples who are able to, and will actively try to have children should be allowed to get married... and that infertile couples and people who don't want children should not be allowed to get married!

[Brundlefly]

I think it comes down to whether or not we want to be culturally assimilated by Mexico.

If we allow gays to marry, we are legitimizing homosexuality as a society.. With this legitimacy, gays will be happier and more productive. That's good.

But the flip side of this is that children in society will be presented with homosexuality as a reasonable alternative for their future... this leads to more same-sex hookups, and, combined with a growing trend away from organized religion, a significant decline in birth rate down the road..

All the while Mexicans will be illegaly pouring through our borders and having babies. Eventually they will become the majority and will turn our national sport into futbol. The most popular TV show will be El Gordo Y La Flaca.. And we'll sit down to a Thanksgiving dinner of rice and beans.

Hey, do you think I could get hired by Bush as a speech writer?

[Ben Kenobi]

And like always... I have to repeat... Not all marriages have the intent of having children. What is the difference between a gay marriage, and a couple who can't or won't have children? You have never had a problem with the latter, so why have a problem with the first?

I actually have quite a few reservations about a couple who is able to have children who gets married and chooses not to have kids at all. They are really a modern innovation that you would not have seen previous.

As for the infertile couple, I have dealt with that already. Hardly comparable because gay people are not infertile, and you cannot blame those who are infertile since through no fault of their own do they find themselves in this situation. Like I said, the fact that a particular marriage may or may not produce children does nothing to change the fact that the only way to get children is through the union of a man and a woman.

[Arrian]

I actually have quite a few reservations about a couple who is able to have children who gets married and chooses not to have kids at all.

And by the way, we get "produce children" without a man-woman marriage or even relationship. Artificial insemination works. You might not LIKE it, but it works. Lesbians can, therefore, have children.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

How many hetero relationships are stable? "Relationships" now, not just marriages! We all know that ~50% of hetero marriages fall apart, and that doesn't even count ones that had some cheating going on but the marriage was salvaged somehow... but even that's not a fair comparison.

I never constrained myself to looking just at marriage. All I said is that it is fairly common to see 30 year marriages where both partners are faithful to each other with heterosexual couples. And a better way to look at this is not as you say by looking at the proportion of relationships, but at the outcomes for each person, since some people will have many many more relationships then others.

By saying "Gay relationships" you include every one-night stand along with every stable long-term partnership. If you look at all hetero relationships, you won't find much stability either. Comparing hetero marriages to all gay relationships is comparing apples to oranges.

Actually I am trying to come up with any cases where a gay couple satisfies my definition of stability, which if you admit my point is not unheard of at all. There are plenty of successful 30 year marriages.

The gays who want to get married are the very ones who are seeking what heteros seek when they get married. And I'd expect a similar failure rate.

You compare apples with apples, the best cases of both or the worst cases of both. One could make the argument that because marriage is there for straight couples, that by looking only at the pool of those who choose not to be married, you will be looking at folks with different motivations, then the pool of all gay eople.

So be careful about your logic, the sword cuts both ways.

So, as usual, your argument is bunk.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As for the infertile couple, I have dealt with that already. Hardly comparable because gay people are not infertile, and you cannot blame those who are infertile since through no fault of their own do they find themselves in this situation. Like I said, the fact that a particular marriage may or may not produce children does nothing to change the fact that the only way to get children is through the union of a man and a woman.

Regardless, you are evading the question of what gives the state the right to dictate to whom marriage is or is not available?

The "union" of a man and a woman means nothing more than a sperm has to meet an egg and the egg has to eventually find itself attached to a uterine wall. Marriage certainly isn't a requirement, and with modern medicine, sex isn't even a requirement.

A woman can give birth and still be a virgin.

[Arrian]

which if you admit my point is not unheard of at all. There are plenty of successful 30 year marriages

Not unheard of, no. Common? Depends on how we define common. My parents qualify. But then again they're going to hell anyway because they are each others's second spouses (each was divorced when they met).

One could make the argument that because marriage is there for straight couples...

One can make all sorts of stupid arguments. Marriage is what we humans decide it is. Period.

-Arrian