Bush Urges Congress to Pass Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage

[Ben Kenobi]

And by the way, we get "produce children" without a man-woman marriage or even relationship.

Indeed, but that merely reinforces my point.

Artificial insemination works. You might not LIKE it, but it works. Lesbians can, therefore, have children.

But not in union with one another. That is the point I have been trying to drive home. It doesn't matter what they do, they will not be able to have children with each other like even the most uncommitted or unfaithful straight couple.

Unfair? Hardly. They are just using the wrong tool for the job.

[Arrian]

But not in union with one another. That is the point I have been trying to drive home. It doesn't matter what they do, they will not be able to have children with each other like even the most uncommitted or unfaithful straight couple.

And that matters why?

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

The Constitution contains no refernces to marriage.

True but jurisprudence does establish the norms of one man and one woman in marriage.

Are you really this thick? The state doesn't pick and choose whom to give disability benefits to; it creates the category, disability, and than has to take anyone who fits.

Re-read what you just said. In defining what counts as a disability they decide who gets the benefit and who does not. 'Nuff said.

And -- and this is the thing: it can't discriminate based on gender.

Yes because gender is irrelevant to disability. I would argue that marriage is quite a different story.

You are right to say that the State can strip away all benefits, but that's my point: it's all or nothing. You want to create benefits for contracts between dyads, then its got to be all dyads.

The state has every right to discriminate in the case of ameliorative benefits. I see no reason why marriage benefits do not fall under this same purview.

I said "competent adults," which rules out the children argument. The incest prohibition does not discriminate; it bans all incestuous relations.

Which really begs the question basically you are saying that competency has always been the same.

Every single argument you've made for banning gay marriage has previously been made at some point to justify banning interracial marriage and interfaith marriage. They are all equally repellent arguments.

Really. I wonder how well the whole union argument works.

Oh wait it doesn't.

[Ben Kenobi]

And that matters why?

When the question is 'why is the union between a man and a man different from a man and a woman,' it matters a considerable deal.
'

[Arrian]

Not really, no.

And besides, that's not the question. The question is "why can't gays get married?"

And the answer, as usual, is "God hates fags"

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True but jurisprudence does establish the norms of one man and one woman in marriage.

Refers to, or establishes? Either way, it's a long, long, way from case law to the Constitution.

Re-read what you just said. In defining what counts as a disability they decide who gets the benefit and who does not. 'Nuff said.

And the criteria for what constitutes a disability is the same for all people and all classes of people. 'Nuff said.

[Jon Miller]

Ben are you really saying that a 'straight' couple who are uncommited, and unfaithful, and don't wish to have children has more business being married then a couple of men who have adopted (but are true to one another, and have been together for decades)?

Jon Miller

[Mao]

Hmmm...what about comparing the gay rights movement to the women's rights movement? Would that be more appropriate (on scale, rather than simply principle)?

[loinburger]

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.

If only one member of the couple is infertile, then we can most assuredly blame the fertile one for choosing to marry somebody who is infertile.

Also, would it be permissible for an infertile gay couple to get married?

Should the state annul the marriage of a childless couple if the man gets a vasectomy and/or the woman gets a tubal ligation?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben are you really saying that a 'straight' couple who are uncommited, and unfaithful, and don't wish to have children has more business being married then a couple of men who have adopted (but are true to one another, and have been together for decades)?

I don't know if you read CS Lewis. He talks about the dangers of both individualism and collectivism, and how we need to walk a path between them.

The answer is neither are really suited. All I said is that even though they are not married, their union will still produce children, ergo their union is substantially different then that of gay men regardless of their being 'true to one another'.

Again, I think the lipstick and pig analogy is also apt. You can put lipstick on a pig to make the pig look better, but that doesn't change the fact that you still have a pig. Same here with the unions. You cannot make the union between two men the same no matter how much lipstick you use.

[Ben Kenobi]

If only one member of the couple is infertile, then we can most assuredly blame the fertile one for choosing to marry somebody who is infertile.

Most infertile couples do not know they are infertile for several reasons.

1. They haven't had kids either through abstinence or contraception.

2. It's only when they try for kids that they find out so no dice.

Finally, even if the couple is infertile, like I said before and will repeat again, even if the particular marriage between a man and a woman does not produce children, it does not change the fact that it is only through the union of a man and a woman that we can get children.

Also, would it be permissible for an infertile gay couple to get married?

No, for the reason above. You would in effort be saying it makes no difference whether it is a man or a man or a man and a woman.

Should the state annul the marriage of a childless couple if the man gets a vasectomy and/or the woman gets a tubal ligation?

No, again a particular marriage isn't the issue here. I hope I don't have to keep repeating myself. Is it really so hard to understand?

[Arrian]

Marriage is what we humans decide it is. I see no compelling reason to not include gays.

They're gonna win eventually, Ben, and the world will be a little bit better for it.

-Arrian

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Finally, even if the couple is infertile, like I said before and will repeat again, even if the particular marriage between a man and a woman does not produce children, it does not change the fact that it is only through the union of a man and a woman that we can get children.

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?

No, for the reason above. You would in effort be saying it makes no difference whether it is a man or a man or a man and a woman.

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

No, again a particular marriage isn't the issue here. I hope I don't have to keep repeating myself. Is it really so hard to understand?

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.

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.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Finally, even if the couple is infertile, like I said before and will repeat again, even if the particular marriage between a man and a woman does not produce children, it does not change the fact that it is only through the union of a man and a woman that we can get children...

No, again a particular marriage isn't the issue here. I hope I don't have to keep repeating myself. Is it really so hard to understand?

Maybe because you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

In either case... there can be no children. And again, you would allow these people to get married because other couples could have children even though they can't. HUH?

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...

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.

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...

While ignoring that many couples use science to help them have children

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...

That's far more honest than what you are doing now.

[SlowwHand]

With the stipulation that it's HIS religion, not mine.

Methodist's welcome people. All people. (A little advertising never hurts. )