• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Extends Fed Benefits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

So, if the only pre-qualifier is a willingness to raise children, then you have no problem with gay marriage?

As long as gay and straight couples sign a legal document that they will raise children -- they're in like flynn.

Correct?

Right.

That's why I keep asking for data on how many gays are actually raising children.

Those that aren't: screw off. I don't give a **** about your "rights" or your "equality" because if your not raising children (adoption counts, imo) then you have no business even asking for the legal buffs.

"Marriage is a strictly legal contract between consenting adults"..bull ****ing ****. Marriage is not a mere "contract", marriage is about forming and maintaining the family. If you're not down with that, fine, go live your life, but you don't deserve a "marriage" in the eyes of the law when your not doing what the law is there to support.

Same with heteros. If the state decides to come in and say "ok,, we'll marry you, but your marriage is void if you don't have children in, say, 5 years"...I'm not going to stand in the state's way.

Show me a demographic where a significant number of brothers and sisters are adopting children out of the system and I'll support incest.
 
Last edited:
Right.

That's why I keep asking for data on how many gays are actually raising children.

That data is irrelevant. It is an arbitrary requirement that YOU attach to the issue which the law doesn't. There is no requirement nor even interest that child rearing comes along with marriage certificates.
 
That data is irrelevant. It is an arbitrary requirement that YOU attach to the issue which the law doesn't. There is no requirement nor even interest that child rearing comes along with marriage certificates.

An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.

An estimated 14,100 foster children are living with lesbian or gay parents.

Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.

More than one in three lesbians have given birth and one in six gay men have fathered or adopted a child.

And the big ones:

More than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians want to have a child.

An estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting.

Source cited earlier, report is from 2007.
 
And the big ones:





Source cited earlier, report is from 2007.

Those are good statistics. However, it is still irrelevant to the issue of marriage as child rearing is not a requisite for a marriage license.
 
Those are good statistics. However, it is still irrelevant to the issue of marriage as child rearing is not a requisite for a marriage license.

I even said it wasn't a stated requisite on the document, wtf are you talking about?

I said the raising of children is what established the state's compelling interest to infringe on your right to privacy, in your marriage, and lay down some rules.

If you have no children, the state has no compelling interest, and you're free to go have a ceremony and live together in perfect privacy.

If you don't have children, then I don't understand why you would want the state to infringe on your right to privacy when it clearly therefore has no compelling interest to do so.
 
Last edited:
I even said it wasn't a stated requisite on the document, wtf are you talking about?

I said the raising of children is what established the state's compelling interest to infringe on your right to privacy, in your marriage, and lay down some rules.

If you have no children, the state has no compelling interest, and you're free to go have a ceremony and live together in perfect privacy.

If you don't have children, then I don't understand why you would want the state to infringe on your right to privacy when it clearly therefore has no compelling interest to do so.

So, since one in three lesbians have children, doesn't the state have a compelling interest in seeing them married?
 
So, since one in three lesbians have children, doesn't the state have a compelling interest in seeing them married?

The state has an interest in the marriage of those lesbians who are raising children.

The state has no interest in the marriage of those lesbians who are not.
 
I even said it wasn't a stated requisite on the document, wtf are you talking about?

I said the raising of children is what established the state's compelling interest to infringe on your right to privacy, in your marriage, and lay down some rules.

If you have no children, the state has no compelling interest, and you're free to go have a ceremony and live together in perfect privacy.

If you don't have children, then I don't understand why you would want the state to infringe on your right to privacy when it clearly therefore has no compelling interest to do so.

What infringement on right to privacy? The marriage certificate comes with a list of benefits, not a wire tap.
 
The state has an interest in the marriage of those lesbians who are raising children.

The state has no interest in the marriage of those lesbians who are not.

How about the approximately 2 million gay people who want to adapt?
 
The state has an interest in the marriage of those lesbians who are raising children.

The state has no interest in the marriage of those lesbians who are not.

Actually, it has no interest in either marriage. It has an interest in the welfare of the children, but the marriage is secondary to that. If the marriage were what the state was interested in, then the state would require marriage to raise children. It doesn't. Your argument falls short because it is arbitrary.
 
How about the approximately 2 million gay people who want to adapt?

I would support clarifying the purpose of marriage through the legal code by giving couples a few years to bring children into their homes, or render the marriage void just the same as if it weren't solemnized within 20 days of the application.
 
What infringement on right to privacy? The marriage certificate comes with a list of benefits, not a wire tap.

Brothah, if it's your personal knowledge against mine, I'm pulling rank. I've been married for 9 years, you? The various buffs from marriage are designed to promote a stable union for the expressed point and purpose of children being raised in the stable union.

If you don't have children, the state couldn't give a rats ass rather your union works or not, because it won't be dealing with a juvenile crime rate, underachieving student, or dishing out title19 or food stamps to help that child.

Without children involved, if you and Josh parted ways, you would have to split some property. That's it. There would be no residual harm to society. The same is true for childless heteros.
 
Last edited:
Brothah, if it's your personal knowledge against mine, I'm pulling rank.

And I am pulling "your anecdote doesn't mean **** to me".

Solved that issue squarely.

As to the rest of your assertion, it is all opinion. You may view it that way, but the law doesn't. Child rearing is not requisite or even particularly encouraged when getting a marriage certificate. It is an arbitrary issue you attach to the gay marriage debate so you can justify your disagreement.

:shrug:
 
Yeah, they mean everyone "including same sex partners".



Not that I've read.
If Tim and Tim want money they better be homos because regular Tim and Tim even wit their bloodbrothers gift cards..aren't 'partners'.
Unconstitutional imo
 
And I am pulling "your anecdote doesn't mean **** to me".

Solved that issue squarely.

As to the rest of your assertion, it is all opinion. You may view it that way, but the law doesn't. Child rearing is not requisite or even particularly encouraged when getting a marriage certificate. It is an arbitrary issue you attach to the gay marriage debate so you can justify your disagreement.

:shrug:

That's one way to avoid the issue, sure. Next time you might post a distracting YouTube :2wave:
 
That's one way to avoid the issue, sure. Next time you might post a distracting YouTube :2wave:

Why? I just undermined your entire argument in a legitimate way. The challenge is on you to support it, which you chose not to do.

:shrug:
 
OK, I will bite. Where is it documented in US law that marriage is for raising children, or however you want to word it?
 
Why? I just undermined your entire argument in a legitimate way. The challenge is on you to support it, which you chose not to do.

:shrug:
...yeah if just copy/past the url, vB will display the vid.....
 
...yeah if just copy/past the url, vB will display the vid.....

So then...you still don't have any support for this whole marriage being for raising children argument you keep pushing.

Thanks for playing but you don't move on to the championship round.
 
Personally me and mines never needed a permission slip from the state to validate our love for each other....


Just sayin.

That's what we thought. We had a Native ceremony w/o the paper thing with the state. I try to live as traditionally as I can. Imagine my surprise and anger when we split up that we had to get a divorce! I was furious. I refused to pay for an attorney (amazing how the scam works to bilk money from folks for lawyers!) and we just acted like grown ups and worked it out ourselves. We still had to pay a fee to file the papers.
 
Back
Top Bottom