Bush Urges Congress to Pass Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage

[Ben Kenobi]

Loinburger:

Because It's only through the union of a fertile man and a fertile woman that we can get children. If the purpose of marriage is to produce children, then why would we allow infertile couples to marry?

Not all couples are fertile with each other, and not all find that out until they are well into their marriage. So it's rather senseless to make a fertility requirement, especially when the expectation is that they are supposed to wait until marriage.

Secondly, the procreative aspect comes from the union of the two in marriage. The union in itself is the purpose, procreation should come from that union if there is nothing preventing it from coming. This is why you can declare a marriage void for lack of consummation.

Well, it doesn't make any difference, if the heterosexual couple is infertile. Neither the gay couple nor the straight couple can produce children.

Sure it does. You are again assuming it makes no difference whether you have a man and a man or a man and a woman.

It's an entire category of marriages we're talking about, namely, the category of heterosexual marriages in which one partner or both partners are infertile by choice or by chance. However, you're failing to address the category as a whole by obtusely claiming that each member of the category is an individual exception to the broader category.

First of all, each case is a medical condition in the case of involuntary infertility and are best treated as such. There is no such thing as a 'category' since there are very different circumstances that need to be address. My point is this. You encourage marriage because of the benefits that are derived from marriage between a man and a woman, and one of those benefits is children. If you don't encourage the union of men and women you will not get children, even if you do get some unfortunate cases where the couple is infertile.

Would you oppose a state law that makes couples take a fertility test as a prerequisite for marriage? Or a law that would annul the marriage of a childless couple in which one of the partners was rendered infertile by chance or by choice? If yes, then why? These couples cannot produce children, making them just as worthelss as a gay couple.

I'm glad you are so bold with your language. First of all a distinction ought to be made between those through no fault of their own are rendered infertile, either through injury or disease, and between those who choose not to have children. The two are very different from one another.

Secondly, even if they are infertile, that in no way renders their union with each other to be the same as the gay couple. The nature of the union does not change even if the circumstances prevent the union from operating normally.

Third, if the couple chooses not to have children, they are making the conscious decision to limit their own union. However, that still does not make their union the same as between a gay couple. All they have to do to have children is to simply change their mind. Even sterlisation can be undone to allow the union to produce children, the same is not true of the gay men and women. Their union will not change regardless of what you do.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
only through the union of a man and a woman that we can get children.

What's the purpose of marriage, Ben? Is the purpose of marriage something that can only be achieved through marriage, and if so, what is it? Is the purpose of marriage simply something that falls in line with the purpose of having children? Is the purpose of marriage to create some this 'union' you speak of, and if so, does this union have its own unique value?

[SlowwHand]

If procreation is the standard we go by, the couple that takes steps to attempt to not have children, old people, women too small to safely birth, etc. are already going to Hell. What's the deal? We should lobby for Gay and Straight sections of Hell?

Or is it bull****?

[Ben Kenobi]

And let's not forget those very religious old folks that get married who know they can't have any more children... which you might have reservations about, but you would still allow...

You are arguing fringes against the middle Ming. Do you not agree that the vast majority of marriages all have the similar characteristics of men and women marrying at a fairly young age, settling down and having children together? Just because in some cases the benefits of marriage are not expressed in procreation, in no way infers that the union of the two older people is in any way inferior to the younger people. The only difference is that the parts are not working in the second case, the substance is the same.

Stop bringing children into your argument unless you are willing to state that only willing and fertile couples be allowed to get married. But you don't believe that for a minute, because you are only using that as an excuse to deny gays their equal rights.

All I have said is the fact that the union of men and women can produce children is evidence that there is a fundamental difference between this union , and the union of men with men or women with women.

So please, rebut the argument I have made, challenge this statement. That's all you have to do. Stop setting up smokescreens.

Here is one for you Ben... if modern medicine came up with a way for gay couples to have children just like everybody else, then would you allow them to get married? Or would you just claim it's not natural...

I thought they already have this. Or are you finally buying my argument about their union?

Just admit you arguments are not based in logic, and are just part of your religious beliefs. and that your religious beliefs would deny equal rights to gays...

What's religious about the statement I made just above this. This is a scientific fact gained through observation.

[Arrian]

All I have said is the fact that the union of men and women can produce children is evidence that there is a fundamental difference between this union

Assuming for the sake of argument that I agree that it represents a "fundamental difference"... so what? How does that then translate into "gays shouldn't be allowed to get married" ? THAT's where the religion comes in.

You accuse others of setting up smokescreens and such, when your argument of "it's not about my religion" is totally disingenuous. Puuuuuulease.

edit: and to be clear, I don't find it to be a "fundamental" difference.

-Arrian

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Just because in some cases the benefits of marriage are not expressed in procreation, in no way infers that the union of the two older people is in any way inferior to the younger people.

Thank you for proving the argument against yourself...

Try this one on for size...
Just because in some cases the benefits of marriage are not expressed in procreation, in no way infers that the union of the two gay people is in any way inferior to the straight people.

So stop talking about "the children" as a reason why it shouldn't be allowed... Again, unless you restrict ALL marriages that do not KEEP producing kids, your point of using kids as a justification is worthless.

[Arrian]

BUT WE MUST THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

Yeah, the kids that gay couples want to adopt

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

Ben, would you agree or disagree with this statement.

God gave marriage to man so that two might become one flesh.

Jon Miller

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What's religious about the statement I made just above this. This is a scientific fact gained through observation.

Your observations...

Couples that can't (or won't) create kids can get married because other couples can.

Gays can't get married because they can't create kids.

No logic there at all... so it must be coming from the religious side of you

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Not all couples are fertile with each other, and not all find that out until they are well into their marriage. So it's rather senseless to make a fertility requirement, especially when the expectation is that they are supposed to wait until marriage.

There are methods of testing fertility beyond that of "try having sex with each other and see if the woman gets pregnant."

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly, even if they are infertile, that in no way renders their union with each other to be the same as the gay couple.

What's the difference? What is the straight infertile couple capable of that the gay couple is incapable of? What makes the straight infertile couple superior to the gay couple?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
If procreation is the standard we go by, the couple that takes steps to attempt to not have children, old people, women too small to safely birth, etc. are already going to Hell. What's the deal?

Remember that Ben's a Catholic convert -- and there's no zeal like the zeal of the newly converted. In fact, according to Catholic doctrine, a married couple that uses birth control is sinning and, if they don't confess the sin and repent, is indeed hellbound. Yes, even if they're using the birth control because they can't afford to feed another mouth (which is what's killing the Philippines). Yes, even if they're using a condom to protect one partner from the other's STD (though the current Pope is rethinking that -- and meeting with resistance). Yes, even if a pregnancy would kill the woman, the unborn child, or both. Take steps to not get pregnant, and you're a sinner. Repent, or go to hell.

This is the faith I ran away from as soon as I could think for myself; why anyone would convert to it is a mystery to me.

Feel free to thank God for making you Methodist...

[loinburger]

I see that this thread is about to drop off of the front page. I understand that BK may have better things to do with his time than to reply to internet forums, but I request that he actually make an attempt to follow up on this one instead of simply ignoring it until it falls by the wayside. The fact that a thread that you have posted in has proved that your ideology is flawed does not necessarily give you license to ignore the thread in question.

Edit: Dammit, Rufus replied to the thread while I was crafting this post.

[Ming]

This is the point when BK usually makes his exit.
And then the next time a thread starts on the subject, he will jump right in with the same old arguments... and the same old posters will respond with the same old arguments... and then the thread falls off the first page, and history keeps repeating itself.

Ben and many of us have gone down this same path MANY times...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ming
This is the point when BK usually makes his exit.
And then the next time a thread starts on the subject, he will jump right in with the same old arguments... and the same old posters will respond with the same old arguments... and then the thread falls off the first page, and history keeps repeating itself.

Ben and many of us have gone down this same path MANY times...

Yep, I'm still "waiting" for replies to posts I made 2 or 3 pages ago, but he won't respond to me.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The point I was making is that the right to freedom of religion is an individual right, it is not conferred on collectives. The reason being that it makes no sense as a collective right.

The American Indian Church alone has the right to use peyote in their religious services, a right not granted to individual members of the church to do so on their own time.

You are wrong (as if that were a surprise).