Marriage and sexuality

[YamiB.]

It is better to invest in heterosexual couples who are loving. There are plenty of loving and infertile couples who would, and do, adopt children who become victim of irresponsible parents or neglect/abuse.

Why is it better to invest in good heterosexual parents? Studies have repeatedly found that homosexual and heterosexual parents raise children just as well.

 

[Kerr]

But it does make all the difference in the world.

You cannot compare apples to oranges because they are not the same. Homosexuality is different from infertility, ethnicity, and gender on so many levels, yet SSM pundits forget these obvious facts.

Not is you argue that having children is the issue. The only case this matters is if all you actually are trying to say is that a family is of a man and a woman and children.

 

[Kerr]

It is better to invest in heterosexual couples who are loving. There are plenty of loving and infertile couples who would, and do, adopt children who become victim of irresponsible parents or neglect/abuse.

Wrong. It does not matter.

 

[YamiB.]

But it does make all the difference in the world.

You cannot compare apples to oranges because they are not the same. Homosexuality is different from infertility, ethnicity, and gender on so many levels, yet SSM pundits forget these obvious facts.

I don't see how they're different in any significant way relating to this topic. Sexuality is innate characteristic just like the rest you mentioned.

If you are going to get into choosing and behavior as in a person choosing to couple with somebody of the same sex (involving both gender and sexuality) then you are comparing the wrong things. A correct comparison would be somebody choosing to marry within their ethnic group or outside of their ethnic group for ethnicity. For infertility it would be choosing to marry a person who is infertile or not.

You have still yet to explain why you think this one case of choice is different from the other two.

 

[Kerr]

SSM pundits keep bringing up supreme court rulings and not showing their quotes in context. I am just bringing to light their own misunderstandings of court rulings.

And I never brought up the court to begin with, if I answer anything it is my own opinion and not what the court said.

Wills can be put in place, living trusts, etc... they have access to all the same legal tools.

Except it is much messier.

 

[madhatter85]

Yes, I apologize for making that typo.



And again we're not talking about individuals we're talking about couples. You say that a person shouldn't be allowed to marry somebody if they choose a partner of the same-sex because they can't have children together. Yet you say that a person can choose to marry a person who is infertile therefore preventing them from having children.



What do the Supreme Court rulings have to do with inconsistencies and logical gaps in your own reasoning. And no you haven't addressed them. You still have not answered what reason there is for infertile couples to marry if the only reason for getting married is to have children. Do you think people should take actions with a reason? You've also still failed to address the fact that entering into a same-sex relationship is equivalent to entering into a relationship where only one person is infertile.

There are absolutely no inconsistencies in my reasoning or logic. Everything I have presented is at face value (which is the only way you can interpret Supreme Court rulings on the nature of marriage.)

 

[madhatter85]

And I never brought up the court to begin with, if I answer anything it is my own opinion and not what the court said.

Which i understand. However, this is not a debate of opinions, It is a debate of fact.

 

[Kerr]

Which i understand. However, this is not a debate of opinions, It is a debate of fact.

No, deep down it is a debate of values. And values shape our opinions.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Homosexuality is different from infertility, ethnicity, and gender on so many levels, yet SSM pundits forget these obvious facts.

It is not different. People with blinders on seem to have a problem understanding this.

 

[madhatter85]

Why is it better to invest in good heterosexual parents? Studies have repeatedly found that homosexual and heterosexual parents raise children just as well.

There have been studies that show differently. you are only looking at one aspect of it.

I never said homosexuals are bad parents in general, I never said they did not have the capacity for parenting. In-fact i think the opposite.

However, same-sex marriages are not a worthwhile investment to the supreme court as they stated that marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival. Homosexuality and therefore homosexual unions is/are not.

 

[Kerr]

There are absolutely no inconsistencies in my reasoning or logic. Everything I have presented is at face value (which is the only way you can interpret Supreme Court rulings on the nature of marriage.)

You think that homosexuals and asexuals should not be able to marry, but you think that infertile people should. You make the difference on behaviour, but if it where really about children it would not matter.

 

[Kerr]

There have been studies that show differently. you are only looking at one aspect of it.

I never said homosexuals are bad parents in general, I never said they did not have the capacity for parenting. In-fact i think the opposite.

However, same-sex marriages are not a worthwhile investment to the supreme court as they stated that marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival. Homosexuality and therefore homosexual unions is/are not.

Actually they are fundamental to our survival, just on a different level. Assuming hetrosexual marriages are, that is.

 

[madhatter85]

No, deep down it is a debate of values. And values shape our opinions.

If you are allowed to debate values and opinions, then so are the Christians, Muslims, and any other religious movement whose opinion is that homosexuality goes against their values. Since most SSM pundits use the argument that religious or moral opinions on matters should not be used as arguments, the same has to be said for their opinions.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Which i understand. However, this is not a debate of opinions, It is a debate of fact.

Your precious supreme court is comprised of a panel of seven justices. That is so that a majority rule can be derived from their opinions. Even if all seven agree that does not constitute fact.

 

[Kerr]

If you are allowed to debate values and opinions, then so are the Christians, Muslims, and any other religious movement whose opinion is that homosexuality goes against their values. Since most SSM pundits use the argument that religious or moral opinions on matters should not be used as arguments, the same has to be said for their opinions.

Where did I say that I didn´t think you should be allowed to? That would go against my values... never mistake me getting heated for that I think you should not have the right to say what you say . If you think I am getting heated, that is (I try to be nice).

 

[madhatter85]

You think that homosexuals and asexuals should not be able to marry, but you think that infertile people should.

False, I believe they should be able to marry any member of the opposite sex of their choosing, As they have the privilege of doing now.

You make the difference on behaviour, but if it where really about children it would not matter.

It makes all the difference because the arguments for same sex marriage use Supreme Court Case rulings which were based on ethnic discrimination. homosexuality is not anywhere close to being in thee same category as ethnicity.

 

[madhatter85]

Your precious supreme court is comprised of a panel of seven justices. That is so that a majority rule can be derived from their opinions. Even if all seven agree that does not constitute fact.

Loving Vs Virginia was 9-0 in favor of deeming Marriage fundamental to our very existence and survival [as a species].

 

[enchanted_one1975]

False, I believe they should be able to marry any member of the opposite sex of their choosing, As they have the privilege of doing now.

How is this any different than saying that any white person should be allowed to marry any other white person of their choosing, but not allowed to marry someone that is black, Hispanic, Indian, or whatever other race they desire?

 

[Kerr]

False, I believe they should be able to marry any member of the opposite sex of their choosing, As they have the privilege of doing now.

So asexuals can marry, even if they may not have sex or children ever? And I made an assumption, that you marry someone you actaully love and is sexually interested in. You can of course marry just a friend or someone you hate, but that does not make a good marriage.

It makes all the difference because the arguments for same sex marriage use Supreme Court Case rulings which were based on ethnic discrimination. homosexuality is not anywhere close to being in thee same category as ethnicity.

It is "what" someone is, not "who" they are. Discriminating over that is wrong.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Loving Vs Virginia was 9-0 in favor of deeming Marriage fundamental to our very existence and survival [as a species].

Ok, and again that was the comprised opinion of a court. That does not constitute fact. Do I need to paste some definitions from the dictionary here?