[W:363]accepting gay as normal

[dixon01767]

Did you read the rest of his post?

Yes I did.

 

[dixon01767]

Only in your fantasies. Without a sperm from the father and an egg from the mother, no births occur.

For raising children. Context is important.

You can get both egg and sperm donated to either a same sex or opposite sex couple to make a baby.

Yeah. Like I said, without a sperm from the father and an egg from the mother, no births occur

 

[roguenuke]

Yeah. Like I said, without a sperm from the father and an egg from the mother, no births occur

That was not the context of my post you were replying to though. You left that context out.

I'm beginning to think you are not debating this honestly.

Procreation does not require marriage. Marriage does not require procreation.

And even when marriage is encouraged for "the sake of the children", it is done so for the best outcome in raising children, not producing them. Procreating children can be accomplished without two people in a marriage being able to reproduce between them. Raising children can also be done without the two people doing so being the ones whose sperm and egg combined to make said child. It is done all the time.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[dixon01767]

That was not the context of my post you were replying to though. You left that context out.

I'm beginning to think you are not debating this honestly.

Procreation does not require marriage.

No one claimed otherwise. We can see who is not honest in this debate

Marriage does not require procreation.

No one claimed otherwise. We can see who is not honest in this debate

And even when marriage is encouraged for "the sake of the children", it is done so for the best outcome in raising children, not producing them.

No one claimed otherwise. We can see who is not honest in this debate

Procreating children can be accomplished without two people in a marriage being able to reproduce between them.

No one claimed otherwise. We can see who is not honest in this debate. And the two people aren't procreating when they are adopting or using artificial means. My dog and I could hire a surrogate and impregnate her with my donated sperm. But my dog and I are not procreating.

Raising children can also be done without the two people doing so being the ones whose sperm and egg combined to make said child. It is done all the time.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

No one claimed otherwise. We can see who is not honest in this debate.

 

[roguenuke]

No one claimed otherwise. We can see who is not honest in this debate




No one claimed otherwise. We can see who is not honest in this debate




No one claimed otherwise. We can see who is not honest in this debate




No one claimed otherwise. We can see who is not honest in this debate. And the two people aren't procreating when they are adopting or using artificial means. My dog and I could hire a surrogate and impregnate her with my donated sperm. But my dog and I are not procreating.



No one claimed otherwise. We can see who is not honest in this debate.

You are the one not debating honestly since you are ignoring the context and content of posts here to post anti science drivel (aka Bull****), implying you could procreate with your dog if you had a surrogate.

No you cant. That is biologically impossible, whether you have a surrogate or not.

And the reason you cant marry your dog is because your dog has no legal rights. You own your dog. Your dog has no rights to exercise on it's own. It has nothing to do with your ability or lack of to procreate with your dog. It has to do with legal standing your dog doesn't have.

Only humans can be spouses legally in the US. This could change if we find (or more likely they find us) other sentient beings. If that were to happen, being able to marry them would not be based on whether you could procreate with them (which you likely couldnt). It would be based on them having rights as a sentient being (which would likely take a legal battle or many).

The only reason marriage is ideal in relation to children is raising them, not procreating them. And same sex couples can and do raise children.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[dixon01767]

You are the one not debating honestly since you are ignoring the context and content of posts here to post anti science drivel (aka Bull****), implying you could procreate with your dog if you had a surrogate.

I could in the same way two gay guys procreate. At most one gay partner contributes sperm while the other is on the sidelines in the procreation process. Like my dog would be.

No you cant. That is biologically impossible, whether you have a surrogate or not.

Biologically impossible for two people of the same sex to procreate. They require a third person.

And the reason you cant marry your dog...

Don't be silly. No one suggested I could or should.

The only reason marriage is ideal in relation to children is raising them, not procreating them.

No one claimed otherwise. The birth of a child obligates ONLY two people in the world. The mother who gave birth and the man who caused her to do so. PRESUMED to be the husband she is married to. Without them, the child has only the hope that someone voluntarily assumes the responsibilities of one or both of them. And with the abundance of single women with absent or unknown fathers we can see that frequently no one else assume those responsibilities. Thus human civilizations requirement or encouragement of men and women marrying. Reduces the number of single mothers on their own. Not an issue when its two people of the same sex engaging in sexual relations.
But of course now its verboten to recognize the special relationship of men and women becoming mothers and fathers to their children, because it offends the delicate sensibility of the homosexuals who cant participate.

 

[roguenuke]

I could in the same way two gay guys procreate. At most one gay partner contributes sperm while the other is on the sidelines in the procreation process. Like my dog would be.



Biologically impossible for two people of the same sex to procreate. They require a third person.



Don't be silly. No one suggested I could or should.




No one claimed otherwise. The birth of a child obligates ONLY two people in the world. The mother who gave birth and the man who caused her to do so. PRESUMED to be the husband she is married to. Without them, the child has only the hope that someone voluntarily assumes the responsibilities of one or both of them. And with the abundance of single women with absent or unknown fathers we can see that frequently no one else assume those responsibilities. Thus human civilizations requirement or encouragement of men and women marrying. Reduces the number of single mothers on their own. Not an issue when its two people of the same sex engaging in sexual relations.
But of course now its verboten to recognize the special relationship of men and women becoming mothers and fathers to their children, because it offends the delicate sensibility of the homosexuals who cant participate.

We are much closer to allowing two guys or two women to procreate together than you and your dog.

Two-Father Babies Could Soon Be Possible, With No Egg Donor Required | IFLScience

And I've shown evidence that two men could (and have) donated sperm to fertilize the eggs being implanted at the same time into the same surrogate, allowing them to not know who the father might be genetically, and in fact having twins who could be of each father. The same cannot be done with you and your dog.

There is also an abundance of step families, where people do in fact assume that role. My sister married a man who is not the biological father of her son. My FIL is really my husband's stepfather. I have not met his bio father. But his stepfather was in the next room when his second grandchild was born.

And if gay couples are using surrogacy or adoption to make babies, raise children, they are in fact two people taking responsibility for children. In fact, they are doing so far more responsibly than even two opposite sex spouses who are just having sex, not intending to get pregnant at all, feeling they arent ready, but not even taking the minimal precautions. Or those who get pregnant prior to committed relationship existing and marry only because of a pregnancy (many of which end in divorce early on).

In fact, the birth of a child does not even obligate those two people who are biologically their parents, since they can put that child up for adoption, relinquishing all parental rights and responsibilities.

They are in fact increasing the number of married couples raising children, particularly those children who they adopt, who would otherwise be raised in orphanages or foster homes (which can be single people). This improves the ratio of couples raising children to single parents raising children.

I challenge you to find one unique thing that only a father or only a mother can teach/give a child after birth, that someone else cannot do for them. Provide evidence to support.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[dixon01767]

We are much closer to allowing two guys or two women to procreate together than you and your dog.

Two-Father Babies Could Soon Be Possible, With No Egg Donor Required | IFLScience

Couldn't get much more irrelevant considering we are discussing traditional marriage's limitation to men and women, as old as human civilization itself.

And I've shown evidence that two men could (and have) donated sperm to fertilize the eggs being implanted at the same time into the same surrogate, allowing them to not know who the father might be genetically, and in fact having twins who could be of each father. The same cannot be done with you and your dog.

And still, only one of the men is actually involved in the process of procreation.

In fact, the birth of a child does not even obligate those two people who are biologically their parents, since they can put that child up for adoption, relinquishing all parental rights and responsibilities.

???Fact that they can put up the kid for adoption doesn't contradict the fact that the birth of a child ONLY obligates two people in the world. The mother who gave birth and the father who caused her to do so.

 

[roguenuke]

Couldn't get much more irrelevant considering we are discussing traditional marriage's limitation to men and women, as old as human civilization itself.



And still, only one of the men is actually involved in the process of procreation.



???Fact that they can put up the kid for adoption doesn't contradict the fact that the birth of a child ONLY obligates two people in the world. The mother who gave birth and the father who caused her to do so.

First, such restrictions were not universal since the beginning of civilization. And we are discussing current laws and reasons for marriage, not those of the past, which still included much more than procreation.

And we are discussing same sex couples meeting the same criteria as opposite sex couples who can and do marry. Procreation is not a requirement for marriage. It is not a purpose for current marriage for most people.

Actually, if they are both providing sperm for the same pregnancy, they are both involved, particularly if she has multiple births. And another possibility is chimerism happening, which could include an embryo absorbing a twin who has the DNA of a different father. Meaning one child could have the DNA of both fathers inside them.

It does contradict that fact because if they are able to relinquish that responsibility to others then after doing so, they are no longer obligated to do anything for that child.

Note how you fail to address that by the vary nature of adopting or using surrogacy, same sex couples are in fact taking responsibility voluntarily for children, for actually raising children. Which is the most important part of parenting, raising them, not creating them. Any irresponsible idiots can create babies. It takes true parents, even if not their bio parents, to raise them. I challenge you to address that.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[bomberfox]

From the male perspective I can assure you sex with women is amazing, it does not suck. Have you ever tried it?

Ok and? Thats your perspective.

 

[dixon01767]

First, such restrictions were not universal since the beginning of civilization.

Always universal. In ancient Mesopotamia a husband got a refund of his bride price if she doesn't produce children.

 

[roguenuke]

Always universal. In ancient Mesopotamia a husband got a refund of his bride price if she doesn't produce children.

Not always universal. China would allow marriages involving dead people, one or both of those involved could be dead and the marriage still went through to allow the families to legally join.

Chinese ghost marriage - Wikipedia

And several civilizations allowed same sex couples to marry.

Additionally, you still fail to realize that we are discussing marriage as it is currently, as improvements in technology allow us not only methods of creating babies without sex, but also allow for us to determine true paternity rather than rely on "marriage", which was never really an effective paternity measure to begin with, but rather working with what they had.

You still fail to address any other points, preferring to cut any replies to you down to single points (normally out of context) and even when addressing them, failing to provide evidence of fact or relevance.
Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[dixon01767]

Couldn't get much more irrelevant considering we are discussing traditional marriage's limitation to men and women, as old as human civilization itself..

First, such restrictions were not universal since the beginning of civilization.

Always universal. In ancient Mesopotamia a husband got a refund of his bride price if she doesn't produce children.

Not always universal. China would allow marriages involving dead people, one or both of those involved could be dead and the marriage still went through to allow the families to legally join.

Chinese ghost marriage - Wikipedia

Chinese people marrying dead people doesn't contradict my assertion that marriage was universally limited to men and women.

 

[roguenuke]

Chinese people marrying dead people doesn't contradict my assertion that marriage was universally limited to men and women.

It does contradict that it was for procreation, has been about procreation. Ghosts, dead people cannot procreate.

Again failing to address the rest of the points as well as the fact that other civilialzations allowed same sex marriages.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia

Even ancient Mesopotamia allowed same sex marriages at times during its existence.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[CLAX1911]

Always universal. In ancient Mesopotamia a husband got a refund of his bride price if she doesn't produce children.

Marraige was never about procreation it was about restricting sexuality. That's why in most of history you received punishment for breaking your vow. That's why through most of history and even today there are vows. Procreation is going to happen no matter what.

 

[dixon01767]

It does contradict that it was for procreation,

I never said it was for procreating. In fact Ive pointed out that marriage inhibits procreation. Blacks in the US have a lower marriage rates than whites yet maintain higher birth rates than whites, Marriage WAS LIMITED to men and women because only men and women procreate. They procreate just fine without marriage. We don't know which couples will procreate. We do know that all who do will be heterosexual couples. Single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers only results from heterosexual couplings.

 

[dixon01767]

Marraige was never about procreation it was about restricting sexuality. .

What a moronic statement. It is only because heterosexuality leads to procreation that society attempts to restrict it.

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;

Just as it was under BC Roman law

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")....

"matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."

 

[CLAX1911]

What a moronic statement.

That's just what people say when they can't argue the point.

"What you said was stupid because reasons"

It is only because heterosexuality leads to procreation that society attempts to restrict it.

All sexuality unbridled can lead to disease, that's a great reason to restrict it. But in reality we haven't restricted any of it in half a century.

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;

Just as it was under BC Roman law

That isn't an argument against same sex marriage, just an argument for heterosexual marriage.

Two people of the same sex getting married to one another does not at all threaten traditional marriage. So such a law will still apply where applicable.

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")....

"matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."

None of this is threatened by same-sex couples being married.

 

[roguenuke]

I never said it was for procreating. In fact Ive pointed out that marriage inhibits procreation. Blacks in the US have a lower marriage rates than whites yet maintain higher birth rates than whites, Marriage WAS LIMITED to men and women because only men and women procreate. They procreate just fine without marriage. We don't know which couples will procreate. We do know that all who do will be heterosexual couples. Single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers only results from heterosexual couplings.

You have and continue to link marriage to procreation.

It doesnt matter where the sperm and egg come from. That has nothing to do with spousal relationships. 20% of heterosexual spouses cannot procreate with each other. That does not even include those who simply wont do so for other reasons. And many homosexual spousal couples will raise children.

If you think marriage isnt about procreation, then what exactly is your problem with two people of the same sex getting married, under our current views of marriage?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

What a moronic statement. It is only because heterosexuality leads to procreation that society attempts to restrict it.

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;

Just as it was under BC Roman law

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")....

"matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."

Which ignores current scientific progress that allows us to determine true paternity, rather than assuming. It also ignores the fact that couples can use sperm and/or eggs donated by others to have a child. They can also adopt. Which means they are not both biologically the parents of their children. We even have lots of step families.

I don't understand why you insist on arguing from a point of view that refuses to recognize progress, advances, changes when it comes to families and making babies and who raises them.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[dixon01767]

That's just what people say when they can't argue the point.

Nah, its what I say because the forum rules prevent me from calling you a moron.

"What you said was stupid because reasons"

And so now you fabricate quotes.

 

[dixon01767]

Which ignores current scientific progress that allows us to determine true paternity, rather than assuming.

And yet, with the overwhelming majority of children, who the father is, is presumed.

 

[roguenuke]

And yet, with the overwhelming majority of children, who the father is, is presumed.

Which has what to do with marriage?

People assume my MIL is my mother when we are out together, despite definite differences between us and the fact that she is only 15 years older than me. People assumed my uncle was my siblings' father when he lived with my mom after my parents' divorce. Why would that matter when it comes to who gets to marry? Because people are lazy and make assumptions they probably shouldn't make?

If two men are together, married, how will that change assumptions others make about who any child's father is? How will two women getting married change that? If it doesnt change those assumptions, then why does it matter if they get married?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

And yet, with the overwhelming majority of children, who the father is, is presumed.

About 70% are raised by two parents (including adopted, step, and same sex). 15% are stepparents. That mean just over a majority are raised by both bio parents, not "overwhelming". So perhaps it would be best for people not to assume.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[dixon01767]

Which has what to do with marriage?

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;