• 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!

[W:363]accepting gay as normal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Every state has similar laws.

Sec. 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;
That are not limiting. They are evidence of the past and allow the state to have two people to hold responsible for a child's wellbeing.

Again, how is it relevant if marriage is not about procreation? 20% of married opposite sex couples cannot have children. 30 to 40% of all children are being raised by different than both biological parents. And even those being raised by their married bio parents may very well have others in their lives who are mistaken for their bio parents, such as an aunt or uncle.

Nothing about your argument is a valid one to limit marriage only to opposite sex couples. Marriage is not primarily about making babies with each other.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Every state has similar laws.

Sec. 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;
This is not an argument against same-sex marriage.
 
That are not limiting. They are evidence of the past and allow the state to have two people to hold responsible for a child's wellbeing.

Again, how is it relevant if marriage is not about procreation? 20% of married opposite sex couples cannot have children. 30 to 40% of all children are being raised by different than both biological parents. And even those being raised by their married bio parents may very well have others in their lives who are mistaken for their bio parents, such as an aunt or uncle.

Nothing about your argument is a valid one to limit marriage only to opposite sex couples. Marriage is not primarily about making babies with each other.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Every state has similar laws.

Sec. 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;

It was about improving the wellbeing of children that only result from a heterosexual coupling. Children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, alcohol and drug abuse, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult. But our society determined that offending the delicate sensibilities of the gays was too high a price to pay for the childrens wellbeing.
 
Every state has similar laws.

Sec. 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;

It was about improving the wellbeing of children that only result from a heterosexual coupling. Children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, alcohol and drug abuse, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult. But our society determined that offending the delicate sensibilities of the gays was too high a price to pay for the childrens wellbeing.
Repeating the same thing in no way supports your argument.

The argument about children benefitting from marriage comes from raising the children, not simply procreating them together.

Marriage is not just for either procreating or even raising children though. It never has been just about children. Children is one of many benefits of marriage, but it is not the only or even main, current purpose. Paternity used to be a main purpose, but no longer is necessary, since we can determine actual paternity.

There are more than just those children who are being raised by their biological parents though. And those children's welfare matter too. And some of those children are being raised by same sex couples, same sex parents, just like those children who are raised by opposite sex parents who are not both their biological parents.

As does that of couples who dont have children, whether same sex or opposite sex, who still are allowed to marry, legally. In some cases, only those who cannot procreate are legally allowed to marry, which easily counters your procreation argument. Allowing such couples to marry does no harm to you nor children nor anyone else, and has been shown to benefit society.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Repeating the same thing in no way supports your argument.

The argument about children benefitting from marriage comes from raising the children, not simply procreating them together.

No one claimed otherwise. You don't even know what you are arguing against. Or searching out your next strawman to seek refuge.
 
No one claimed otherwise. You don't even know what you are arguing against. Or searching out your next strawman to seek refuge.
Then what does your line of arguments have to do with not allowing same sex couples to marry? There is no negative to it, opposite sex couples can get married who cannot have children, and children of same sex couples benefit from being raised by married parents. So what exactly is your argument for not allowing same sex couples to marry?

You are the one who continues to omit arguments and started from the position that opposite sex couples can procreate.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
No one claimed otherwise. You don't even know what you are arguing against. Or searching out your next strawman to seek refuge.
Since post 746 (or there abouts) you have been talking about perpetuation of the human species and how homosexuality does not do that. Homosexuals can perpetuate the human species. Just as heterosexuals who choose not to have sex or who are sterile will not perpetuate it. Neither is a reason to deny rights to same sex partners nor to homosexuals in general.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Opposite sex couples warrant special treatment as they are the only type of couple that can procreate. As long as marriage isnt made available to any two consenting adults, the homosexuals are receiving special treatment with really no justification for doing so.
This is your quote that started this argument/debate. You claim opposite couples warrant special treatment due solely to their ability to procreate together.

However, this fails to recognize that not all opposite sex couples who marry procreate with each other, some are only allowed to marry if they cannot procreate with each other in fact. It fails to recognize that marriage benefits children being raised by married parents of any type, not just those who are their biological parents, but also stepparents and adopting parents, and those who use surrogacy to get children, which includes same sex couples. It fails heavily in recognizing that marriage in the US is not mainly about the children, but rather the couple, making them legally spouses.

Your assertions that marriage is for or mainly for procreation (derived from your claim that opposite sex couples deserve special treatment, aka marriage) are easily countered by the facts about marriage and just modern technology. We dont need two people of the opposite sex to actually have sex to produce children, and we know how to determine paternity without hoping that married people arent cheating on each other.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Then what does your line of arguments have to do with not allowing same sex couples to marry?

That's your strawman. I was showing why marriage, from the dawn of human civilization through the 20th century was limited to men and women. Because only men and women produce children. Just as presumption of paternity statutes today in 50 states are limited to men and women. If some married gay guy knocks up a woman, we aren't going to presume his husband is the father. And if some married lesbian gets knocked up, we aren't going to presume her wife is the father. AND THIS ISNT ALL A PART OF SOME NEFARIOUS PLOT to "disparage and injure" homosexuals and is instead because only sex between men and women produces children.
 
This is your quote that started this argument/debate.

That's an argument that homosexuals currently receive special treatment with our marriage laws. Not that they shouldn't be allowed but instead an argument that any two consenting adults should be able to marry.
 
That's an argument that homosexuals currently receive special treatment with our marriage laws. Not that they shouldn't be allowed but instead an argument that any two consenting adults should be able to marry.
There is no special treatment because marriages for opposite sex couples are not about children. Despite your insistence otherwise, nor has it been universally about children.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
That's an argument that homosexuals currently receive special treatment with our marriage laws. Not that they shouldn't be allowed but instead an argument that any two consenting adults should be able to marry.

Homosexuals and unrelated people receive special treatment
 
That's your strawman. I was showing why marriage, from the dawn of human civilization through the 20th century was limited to men and women. Because only men and women produce children. Just as presumption of paternity statutes today in 50 states are limited to men and women. If some married gay guy knocks up a woman, we aren't going to presume his husband is the father. And if some married lesbian gets knocked up, we aren't going to presume her wife is the father. AND THIS ISNT ALL A PART OF SOME NEFARIOUS PLOT to "disparage and injure" homosexuals and is instead because only sex between men and women produces children.

And you are wrong. I provided evidence for that.

Paternity statutes are outdated. What do you not understand about that? Are you going to assume the white man is the father of the mixed race baby of the white woman he is married to? Why would such assumptions make any difference in marriage?

But those gay men and lesbian women still can claim parentage of their children, whether adopted or gained through the marriage. Regardless of the laws about paternity.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
And you are wrong. I provided evidence for that.

Paternity statutes are outdated. What do you not understand about that? Are you going to assume the white man is the father of the mixed race baby of the white woman he is married to? Why would such assumptions make any difference in marriage?

But those gay men and lesbian women still can claim parentage of their children, whether adopted or gained through the marriage. Regardless of the laws about paternity.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Notice how you never got around to pointing out what I was "wrong" about.
 
Notice how you never got around to pointing out what I was "wrong" about.
That marriage has universally been between a man and woman (I provided evidence this isnt true), and that it was due to their ability to procreate (which certainly is not true, given ghost marriages, proxy marriages, and the fact that many marriages were about joining families like a business arrangement).

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Notice how you never got around to pointing out what I was "wrong" about.
Also note how you never actually address any points being made, but rather dance around with this sort of comments, deflecting rather than addressing points.

Paternity statutes are outdated. They can and generally are easily updated to include any children either spouse has when entering the marriage or gains while in the marriage as the responsibility of both spouses in a marriage.

If a widow remarried with 2 kids, and then she died 5 years later, do you think the government would really not expect the stepfather to step up to take care of those children, especially if he has already been doing so? Do you think they would fight him for custody? Should they?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Also note how you never actually address any points being made, but rather dance around with this sort of comments, deflecting rather than addressing points.

Well, your point was that I was "wrong", except you cant point out what I was wrong about.

Paternity statutes are outdated.

Their limitation to men and women aren't outdated because still in the 21st century, only heterosexual relations lead to procreation. Only thing outdated about the statement is that in this new PC world such facts aren't discussed as it may offend the delicate sensibilities of the homosexuals.


They can and generally are easily updated to include any children either spouse has when entering the marriage ….

Marrying someone with kids creates no parental obligations. Birth of a child only obligates two people in the world. The mother who gave birth and the man that caused her to do so. Presumed in the law to be the mothers husband. Otherwise the kids have only the hope that someone voluntarily assumes those responsibilities.
 
Well, your point was that I was "wrong", except you cant point out what I was wrong about.



Their limitation to men and women aren't outdated because still in the 21st century, only heterosexual relations lead to procreation. Only thing outdated about the statement is that in this new PC world such facts aren't discussed as it may offend the delicate sensibilities of the homosexuals.




Marrying someone with kids creates no parental obligations. Birth of a child only obligates two people in the world. The mother who gave birth and the man that caused her to do so. Presumed in the law to be the mothers husband. Otherwise the kids have only the hope that someone voluntarily assumes those responsibilities.

I've posted much more than just "you're wrong", most of which you haven't addressed.



You are wrong about parental obligation. Parental obligation can come from choosing to take on that responsibility. And despite your insistence to the contrary, the biological parents of a child are not obligated to anything more than adopting parents. In fact, the biological father can remain completely unknown to mother, child, and/or society, because of the mother or father. Sperm can be donated anonymously. Both biological parents can give up all their responsibility by giving up a child for adoption or simply by donating their egg/sperm. They have no obligation to a child from their biological parts in that case.

If a stepparent adopts their step kids, they are obligated to provide for them. And even sometimes when the bio parents just arent able to.

2 Rare scenarios when stepparents are forced to pay child support -OVLG

Step-parenting and the law | Raising Children Network

Some laws do in fact hold stepparents responsible when they have chosen to basically treat their stepchildren as their children, to what degree depends on many factors though.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom