Traditional Marriage?

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Edevus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Edevus wrote:
Homosexual couples can have natural children.
[/quote]

Please explain. I would really like to know how this is biologically possible.[/quote]

Keep reading, I explained it just after.

[/quote]

I did…still don’t understand. Maybe I need to go take more bio classes, but please help me figure this out:

If two dudes are in a room with no one else…if they have intercourse…which one gets pregnant and has a baby?[/quote]

If a poor virgin gets pregnant…wait, what?

I told you to keep reading, so read and stop trolling.

[quote]Edevus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Edevus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Edevus wrote:
Homosexual couples can have natural children.
[/quote]

Please explain. I would really like to know how this is biologically possible.[/quote]

Keep reading, I explained it just after.

[/quote]

I did…still don’t understand. Maybe I need to go take more bio classes, but please help me figure this out:

If two dudes are in a room with no one else…if they have intercourse…which one gets pregnant and has a baby?[/quote]

If a poor virgin gets pregnant…wait, what?

I told you to keep reading, so read and stop trolling.

[/quote]

So, you’re saying…Same sex couples can’t make babies and that to make babies you need a man and woman. K.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

So, you’re saying…Same sex couples can’t make babies and that to make babies you need a man and woman. K.[/quote]

But, he said [quote]Homosexual couples can have natural children (renting a mother if m/m, getting one of them pregnant if w/w). [/quote]…because there is, of course, nothing more natural and more prevalent in nature than someone “renting” a mother to have children they can’t otherwise have themselves.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

So, you’re saying…Same sex couples can’t make babies and that to make babies you need a man and woman. K.[/quote]

But, he said [quote]Homosexual couples can have natural children (renting a mother if m/m, getting one of them pregnant if w/w). [/quote]…because there is, of course, nothing more natural and more prevalent in nature than someone “renting” a mother to have children they can’t otherwise have themselves.[/quote]

I dont see how that is even relevant because it marriage was natural there would not be a social struggle to define it this or that way.

edit: yeah, well, that is probably a tad optimistic.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

So, you’re saying…Same sex couples can’t make babies and that to make babies you need a man and woman. K.[/quote]

But, he said [quote]Homosexual couples can have natural children (renting a mother if m/m, getting one of them pregnant if w/w). [/quote]…because there is, of course, nothing more natural and more prevalent in nature than someone “renting” a mother to have children they can’t otherwise have themselves.[/quote]

I can think of two things more natural and prevalent in nature than what I said :

-A virgin getting pregnant.
-Marriage.

Ah wait…

“Renting a Mother.” Yes, those words were used.

I actually wasted my time reading this thread?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
“Renting a Mother.” Yes, those words were used.

I actually wasted my time reading this thread? [/quote]

Surrogacy is legal in many USA states and many countries in the world.

And it’s more natural than talking snakes, pregnant virgins and miracles.

[quote]orion wrote:

I dont see how that is even relevant because it marriage was natural there would not be a social struggle to define it this or that way. [/quote]

You have it backwards - it’s precisely because rational marriage has a natural foundation - it’s rational, and it naturally applies to a certain kind of natural relationship (those that produce children) - that there is a “social struggle to define it this or that way”.

I posed this in another thread long ago - assume a world where heterosexuals don’t produce any offspring. Heterosexuals exist alongside homosexuals, and their relationships are basically (biologically) identical - in neither situation does coupling lead to offspring.

In such a world, is there any reason for marriage to exist for heterosexuals at all, with no children resulting from their relationships?

The answer is - of course not.

And that answer is true for homosexual relationships, for precisely the same reasons.

[quote]Edevus wrote:

I can think of two things more natural and prevalent in nature than what I said :

-A virgin getting pregnant.
-Marriage.

Ah wait…[/quote]

That’s super, Einstein - but take a Ritalin and try and focus on what is really being argued, not your prepackaged hipster shortcut arguments that aren’t responsive to anyone’s points.

Homosexuals don’t naturally produce children. It’s science. Consider taking a class.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

“Renting a Mother.” Yes, those words were used. [/quote]

Sure, this is what passes for “natural”, apparently.

Maybe we should start a thread on the failure of the educational system.

Qsar, I agree with you from your first page post.

Would this be to simple of a solution:

If you are already married you then go to the courthouse with the correct papers and they register you as

a “civil union couple”. If you are of homosexual nature you go to the courthouse and get a “civil union”

certificate.

I do not understand why this is so hard. If your place of worship allows for homosexual marrige, fine.
After the ceremony you bring your marriage certificate to the courthouse and they file you as a “civil union”

If your place of worship does not condone homosexual marrige so be it…find a different venue.

[quote]Edevus wrote:
I can think of two things more natural and prevalent in nature than what I said :

-A virgin getting pregnant.
-Marriage.

Ah wait…

[/quote]

That is quite the non-sequitor. However, this has nothing to do with the topic unless you’d like to explain your quips further.

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Qsar, I agree with you from your first page post.

Would this be to simple of a solution:

If you are already married you then go to the courthouse with the correct papers and they register you as

a “civil union couple”. If you are of homosexual nature you go to the courthouse and get a “civil union”

certificate.

I do not understand why this is so hard. If your place of worship allows for homosexual marrige, fine.
After the ceremony you bring your marriage certificate to the courthouse and they file you as a “civil union”

If your place of worship does not condone homosexual marrige so be it…find a different venue.

[/quote]

This solution is just calling marriage by a different name. Which brings up the issue, why is the label so important in the first place? I don’t see why this couldn’t accomplish the same thing.

Government recognized marriage = “Marriage” (This can include homosexuals)
Conservative traditional marriage = Marriage

If your against gay marriage, then just call the government version of it whatever you’d like to feel better about it and your version isn’t compromised.

thank you ANDY, as you simplified the point I was trying to make ; )

/Call what you have done in the “church” marriage and what you bring to your local governmental agency

" a civil union" ! ! !

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

This solution is just calling marriage by a different name. Which brings up the issue, why is the label so important in the first place? I don’t see why this couldn’t accomplish the same thing.[/quote]

Because the government is not (and never has been) simply in the business of rewarding people for their choices in any old relationship. The label matters because the label sets a certain relationship above and apart from other relationships because society has an interest in promoting that relationship, not so much the others.

Seriously.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

This solution is just calling marriage by a different name. Which brings up the issue, why is the label so important in the first place? I don’t see why this couldn’t accomplish the same thing.[/quote]

Because the government is not (and never has been) simply in the business of rewarding people for their choices in any old relationship. The label matters because the label sets a certain relationship above and apart from other relationships because society has an interest in promoting that relationship, not so much the others.

Seriously.[/quote]

Not like any of us has said this already 6000 times or so.

Yet this specific point, the actual crux of this issue, will be ignored, again, because there IS NO getting around it. As therapeutic marriage opponents muleheadedly refuse to budge one inch from their bigoted position.

Traditional marriage would be what the paleolitic humans had( paleoliticum represents something like 90% of the existence of homo sapiens ), but we dont know for shure if they even had something like marriage!

This discussion boils down to what people prefer. If you dont like samesex-marriage then say that, but dont make historicaly incorrect claims to what marriage originally are or are supposed to be.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Qsar, I agree with you from your first page post.

Would this be to simple of a solution:

If you are already married you then go to the courthouse with the correct papers and they register you as

a “civil union couple”. If you are of homosexual nature you go to the courthouse and get a “civil union”

certificate.

I do not understand why this is so hard. If your place of worship allows for homosexual marrige, fine.
After the ceremony you bring your marriage certificate to the courthouse and they file you as a “civil union”

If your place of worship does not condone homosexual marrige so be it…find a different venue.

[/quote]

This solution is just calling marriage by a different name. Which brings up the issue, why is the label so important in the first place? I don’t see why this couldn’t accomplish the same thing.

Government recognized marriage = “Marriage” (This can include homosexuals)
Conservative traditional marriage = Marriage

If your against gay marriage, then just call the government version of it whatever you’d like to feel better about it and your version isn’t compromised.[/quote]
The point of involving the government is to get certain rights, like making hospital decisions over someone and inheritance. If I get a power of attorney with my SO, I would get the same benefits. Social contracts are personal and whatever people agree to do privately should be all that matters. Involving the government just complicates things and opens the door for one group of people to make decisions over the personal lives of other groups of people: denying rights, creating punishment for ‘disapproved’ behavior, etc. Just like we’ve seen and we continue to see, and some posters here even advocate. Though talk about infringing on THEIR rights, and they get all up in arms about it! Oh, the hypocrisy!

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I thought governments were supposed to protect the right of contract between two people.[/quote]

Governments are to help propagate society. One way is to protect private property, which contracts fall under.[/quote]

… Did you just call women “private property”?

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

This solution is just calling marriage by a different name. Which brings up the issue, why is the label so important in the first place? I don’t see why this couldn’t accomplish the same thing.[/quote]

Because the government is not (and never has been) simply in the business of rewarding people for their choices in any old relationship. The label matters because the label sets a certain relationship above and apart from other relationships because society has an interest in promoting that relationship, not so much the others.

Seriously.[/quote]

Not like any of us has said this already 6000 times or so.

Yet this specific point, the actual crux of this issue, will be ignored, again, because there IS NO getting around it. As therapeutic marriage opponents muleheadedly refuse to budge one inch from their bigoted position.

[/quote]

I don’t understand, what makes the label of “marriage” too “above and apart” for gay couples?