All homosexual couples are infertile regardless of age, physical condition, choice, or whatnot.

Furthermore, with homosexuals, unlike heterosexuals, their ability to procreate will not change with age, physical condition, choice, or anything of the sort; it never exists and never changes.

Hence, there is no reason to extend to them an institution that exists to, as AE nicely put it, “encourage procreation within marriage so children are raised by their biological parents. We believe as a society that this is the ideal, so we encourage it.”

Furthermore, the basic denial of this biological fact that is obvious to the vast majority of people only manages to paint gay and lesbian activists as irrational. Why are gay liberals so incapable of acknowledging a) that heterosexuals and homosexuals are different, b) that this justifies the law treating them in a different fashion, and c) that the logical step would then be to work on law that is relevant to gay and lesbian couples instead?

Not all couples are homosexual either. So what?

Furthermore, not all heterosexual couples are physically abnormal.

???

However, all homosexual couples, regardless of age, physical abnormality, or desire, are incapable of procreation and incapable of producing children without additional assistance, legal or physical — no exceptions. Furthermore, the children they produce will not be biologically related to both members of the couple.

However, all infertile couples, regardless of age, physical abnormality, or desire, are incapable of procreation and incapable of producing children without additional assistance, legal or physical — no exceptions. Furthermore, the children they produce will not be biologically related to both members of the couple.

The reason gay marriage supporters are so obsessed with exceptions among heterosexuals is because the reality of the vast and overwhelming majority of heterosexuals emphatically refutes their argument.

Actually, it is not those of us who support gay marriage who are obsessed with exceptions. We’re saying the logic that you are using for not allowing same sex marriage should also apply to all other couples who cannot or will not procreate.

Yet, you have, as far as I know, that you have NEVER advocated barring marriage for couples where both are over 70. These couples cannot procreate. NO EXCEPTIONS. No deck stacking here. No blood tests needed. We don’t even need to know the genders of the persons. And, again, as far as I know, you have not advocated discouraging infertile couples or couples who do not want children from getting married. (Yes, couples can change their mind about children. No problem. We can, according to your logic, simply tell this couple not to marry until and if they change their mind.)

So your argument is basically:

Infertile couples: Okay, if they are opposite sex.
Couples that do not want to have children: Okay, if they are opposite sex.
Couples that will not procreate but adopt: Okay, if they are opposite sex
Same sex couples: No.

Rationale: Arbitrary selectivity of exceptions, and repeating obvious facts, that no one is disputing, that do not make your argument. Akin to saying, “the sky is blue, so I’m right.”

The pattern of overemphasizing exceptions is akin to the argument that unlimited abortion is necessary to protect victims of rape and incest — despite the fact that abortions as a result of rape and incest constitute less than 5% of the abortions performed annually and the remainder are a matter of the mother choosing to kill the baby because it is personally inconvenient to her. It’s an analogue to banning gun ownership for everyone because a tiny fraction of the privately-owned guns that are out there are used to commit crimes, while the vast majority of gun owners do not.

ILC since you apparently are able to police both when it is appropriate to call name, and when name calling has occurred

Nope – I just open my eyes, read what’s in front of me, and say what I think. Deal with it.

Why mention the iron curtain if there was not an intention to associate communist thought?

For a person to characterize one of your *arguments* – or how that argument has significant aspects in common with what some very bad people do, aspects that you seem oblivious to – is not name-calling, it’s discussing arguments.

Still, even if you ignore both of those, there is still the NDT comment before I called him a name.

Bullcrap. NDT’s comment was, again, directed to your tactics / bad arguments, not to your person.

Let’s sum up. These, claimed by Henry as name-calling on him, are clearly not:

[Henry, you have used] An arguemtn that simply doesnt fly this side of the Iron Curtain.

The fact that you are arguing you need them now shows that you were either woefully ignorant when you adopted this child, or that you deliberately put a child into a situation that you knew was inferior.

The second one is bad argumentation and a bad way to go, as I’ve already stated. But not name-calling. This would be name-calling:

You are clueless. (Henry #47)
NDT is an idiot. (Henry #51)

QED.

Henry,

Nice. Get the implication that I’m a communist in. Very Nice.

If you don’t want the dictatorial nature of your arguments pointed out, don’t make arguments that are dictatorial in nature. Otherwise I will point them out every time.

And, no, that’s not entirely true [that your argument supposes that marriage has evolved on its own] . As I pointed out, several times, most of the requirements for marriage that would have been a barrier to same-sex couples were removed well before gays started looking. This was done socially, according to wsishes.

Sorry Henry, the barriers you seem to think were the only thing preventing gays from getting married were never part of marriage in the United States to begin with… You never had to be able to procreate to get married. You never had to want to have children to be married, you never had to have a religious marriage, and you never had to know the person for any period of time.

And yet gay marriage has never been recognized.

The reason your argument fails, and not mine, is, again, because you are trying to establish that the purpose of marriage to society isn’t what the people say it is, and therefore society HAS to recognize your relationship because of the equal protection clause. Or, precisely as I said before, you are trying to argue that the people don’t have the right to decide why they are encouraging marriage in the first place. An argument that will fail every time, and indeed, must fail every time because as I said before, it is dictatorial in nature.

there are judicial limits on the majority to prevent them from being able to pick and choose who gets what rights. Tyranny of the majority, and all that. Just because you don’t agree with me, that doesn’t mean that you get to decide what rights I am entitled to.

You’re absolutely right. I don’t get to decide what rights you are entitled to. But you don’t have the right to have society tell you that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality. And you dont have the right to have society treat you the same for doing something fundamentally different. Period. Ever. End of story.

but your personal belief as to what requirements should or should not exist for marriage are largely irrelevant

They are, until a majority of my fellow Americans agree with me, and we make it the law, as has already been done:

“The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State’s legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children.” ~ SCOWA

What’s funny here is that you don’t recognize that you just defeated your own argument. YOUR beliefs about what marriage should be are just as irrelevant, indeed, are more irrelevant because most people don’t agree with you. And yet because the majority of Americans don’t agree with you, you are trying to argue that the people don’t have the right to decide why they support marriage as a society. All of your arguments are predicated on it.

The ability (or desire) to procreate is not a pre-requisite to marry.

You are correct. They aren’t. But nobody ever said marriage was about MAKING people have children. Marriage is about encouraging people to have children within the bonds of marriage, so that children are raised by their biological parents as often as possible, and so that their biological parents are so tied up in legal knots that they cant abandon them.

This argument also fails, and this is important, because it supposes that society cant encourage something without also enforcing it. That if society wants procreation it has to force people to procreate, that if society wants kids to be raised by their biological parents, then they have to make sure no children are ever raised under any other circumstance…all of which is patently ridiculous.

The government wanted to encourage you to go out and stimulate the economy, so they sent you a tax rebate. Did they force you to spend it? Did they come make sure you didn’t put it under your mattress or spend it in another country? Did they ask you how you were going to spend it before they sent you the check? No.

Because its perfectly legitimate to encourage a behavior without forcing it.

The same way it is perfectly legitimate for the government to encourage as many children to be born within the bonds of matrimony by offering men and women incentives to get hitched. Again, notice the dictatorial quality of your argument. that government cant just encourage something generally, it has to specifically force it. But in a free society its enough to just encourage it.

And, I might add, you argument fails on another level. If the purpose of marriage is to protect children (an assertion I obviously disagree with), then let my partner and I marry – we have a child…Or, is it only intended to protect some children?

I’m sorry to disappoint, but my argument doesn’t fail, yours does.

And I didn’t use the word “protect”, I said marriage exists to encourage procreation within marriage so children are raised by their biological parents. We believe as a society that this is the ideal, so we encourage it.

You and your partner don’t get the benefits because you’re not exhibiting the behavior society is trying to encourage. You didn’t marry your child’s mother, your child wasn’t born into a marriage between its mother and father. your child is not being raised by his/her mother and father.

As a society, we have all sorts of other laws to protect your child, but you and your partner aren’t going to collect the benefits that exist to encourage something you didn’t do. If that argument were valid then we would have to give all the benefits of marriage to single mothers because, after all, they’re raising children too!

But we’re not trying to encourage children to be raised by single parents, any more than we are trying to encourage children to be raised by same sex couples. Just because society doesn’t prevent it doesn’t mean its the ideal.

Exhibit the ideal, get the cookies. Until then you might want to examine your dictatorial tendencies.

The Journal of Left of Center Thinking…
A contemporary online magazine which explores life, politics, gay rights, and general issues for discerning left-leaning readers.

(emphasis added) OK, good night!

As long as gay liberals like you wish to whine that your children are being harmed due to your lack of marriage, it can and should be logically pointed out that you chose to put them in that position, which makes you responsible for any harm that occurs to them.

NDT, the basic problem with that line of argument is that adopting kids is (usually) not a harm to them. Which is why society permits / supports / encourages those adoptions. It’s a question of improvement by degrees. Kid with no parents – Bad situation. Kid with (good) gay parents, who cannot marry – A large net improvement. Kid with gay parents who can now marry, and are married – Still better.

More power to you.

Enjoy your small little world, guys.

I was wrong to assume that someone as NABLA-addled, lie-prone, insult-happy, libtarded, unresponsible, inferior and child abusive would be able to post here without being called on the carpet.

You have opened my eyes.

Enjoy your small little world, guys.

I was almost certain that calling someone a ‘leftist’ on here was an insult, just like calling them a libtard.

Hmmm…but tell me this. Here’s the ‘Communist’ quote:

Your entire argument is predicated on the supposition that marriage is a thing in and of itself that has evolved independently of the people’s wishes. In other words, that the people have no right to determine what the purpose of marriage to society is in the first place. An argument that simply doesn’t fly this side of the Iron Curtain.

Why mention the iron curtain if there was not an intention to associate communist thought? If you take away the ‘Iron Curtain’ comment (which, as a libtard, I may be mistaken but I think refers to the old soviet union), how does that change things? He could have said ‘That’s not how things are done in the US, or simply ‘That’s not how things are done’. Why the Iron Curtain?

Still, even if you ignore both of those, there is still the NDT comment before I called him a name.

80. Translation: “I’m Henry and I’m not responsible for my actions.”

Actually, I’m pretty sure you could read that to be exactly that I was taking responsibility for my actions.

The truth quite often is to those who are in denial of it.

As long as gay liberals like you wish to whine that your children are being harmed due to your lack of marriage, it can and should be logically pointed out that you chose to put them in that position, which makes you responsible for any harm that occurs to them. But again, as with the NAMBLA issue, you cannot defend your argument’s consistency, so you start whining about being attacked instead.

Translation: “I’m Henry and I’m not responsible for my actions.”

To use the vernacular, ain’t that the truth.

leftist: noun: a person who supports the political left

Oh, horrible name! Such a grave insult to someone’s intelligence and humanity! TGC at #11, how dare you!

I was quicker to the name calling in this thread than I have been in previous ones – could be because someone was attacking the validity of my family.

Translation: “I’m Henry and I’m not responsible for my actions.”

Actually, it’s from someone who can’t type correctly – a shortcoming I have already admitted to – and one which I am not alone in suffering from.

Amazing. I mean, how much I learn on this blog! First I learned there is “no legitimate opposition to gay marriage” (something I hadn’t known in the years I’ve been supporting gay marriage). Now I learn that “leftist” is a ‘name’.

OK, so let me modify what I said earlier (since, Henry, at #25 you were still certainly *NOT* called a communist – that’s a clear misrepresentation on your part):

EITHER “leftist” is a bad name despite the person’s own use of terms like “liberal” or “left” in phrases that describe themselves, and I never knew… OR, you are certainly the first one to name-call in this thread. How about that?