The American Hypocrisy In The Gay Marriage Debate

Originally posted by dbates
It would be cost prohibitive to test every couple's fertility before issuing a license.

That's irrelevant. And it doesn't answer the question. You stipulate that marriage license are given only to people who can provide a civil benefit. I'm asking what is the civil benefit that infertile (and older) couples provide?

If it were practical they would probably test regular marriages too.

And you would support disallowing infertile man/woman couples from getting married? Women over 50? People who didn't want to procreate?

Is it true that the ONLY reason to get married in your view is to have children?

Of course the same sex unions are a guaranteed no child scenario, so that's not even a good argument.

The infertile couple is also a guaranteed no child scenario. That IS my argument. And I have yet to hear your rebuttal.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
what is the civil benefit that infertile (and older) couples provide?

Infertility can be medically treated in some cases, and couples that state they don't want children can change their mind at a later time. Why do we allow weddings of older couples? Because we don't micro manage the issue and we want to encourage as many man/woman unions as possible. Why? Because only man/woman unions produce offspring. That's not to say that they always do or always will. But this is the only combination that works. It is impossible for homosexuals to have children under ANY circumstance. (Please don't cite adoption or in vitro since that involves both sexes)

Originally posted by dbates
Please don't cite adoption or in vitro since that involves both sexes.

Why not?

Both Genders won't be made obsolete by homosexual marriage so there will always be both genders.

I would rather see a strong homosexual couple raise an adopted child who was born to crack addicts who are otherwise heterosexual then have the crack addicts raise the child.

There is a lot of gray area on this topic. the fact of te matter is that the distinction of homo or hetero does not embody the entirety of a personality and social situation. Period.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
I would rather see a strong homosexual couple raise an adopted child who was born to crack addicts who are otherwise heterosexual then have the crack addicts raise the child.

Of course. So would I but this still doesn't breech the fact that homosexuals can not have children. A single man or woman, or a man/woman couple could just as easily adopt and care for an unwanted child. The homosexual couple still has nothing that sets it apart from being meaningful to anyone but the the two individuals involved. What do homosexual marriages bring to the table?

I can go buy milk from the store but that doesn't mean I can replace cows with this method.

reply to post by dbates


Why do they have to be "meaningful"? I know plenty of straight people and straight married couples that are no where near "meaningful". Do we deny them rights and freedoms, too?

The ability to reproduce should have no weight when it comes to the ability to have certain rights and/or the denial of certain rights.

Either I am missing a big part of your logic or your argument doesn't make much sense.....at least in my mind.

Gay people certainly in the UK have a higher average salary than straight people. Therefore on average us gay people pay more tax per head. We generally don't have children so we do not drain taxes educating them, providing them with medical treatment etc. We have more disposable income, so therefore we help the economy through our spending.

In the UK we can join the military and be openly gay, and we can have a civil partnership such that legally we have the same rights as a married hetrosexual couple. This means things like being recognised as next of kin, and the same pension and inheritance tax benfits that hetrosexual couples have. I do hope that the USA follows and allows homosexuals these same rights. Why should we be treated like second class citizens becase of who we have sex with.

If sex is purely about making babies, then surely any sex that is for gratification alone is unnatural and wrong. Are these hetrosexual people mentally ill too, especially the men who have anal sex with their wives or girlfriends?

I really do not understand why people have such an issue over some men/woman liking people of the same gender. Why should what we get up to in the privacy of our own homes be such an issue.

Originally posted by dbates
What do homosexual marriages bring to the table?

Stability. Legal protection. Equal protection. Continuity. An open commitment to remain together and be fully participating members of society.

He has a war wound. She's had a hysterectomy. No possibility for children. If they decide to get married, should society deny them the opportunity to be a legally recognized couple?

Traditional marriage does absolutely nothing to GUARANTEE an advantage to society. The advantage is legal rights for the participants. And I believe people who have been afforded the legal rights are just that much more likely to be inclined to be good participating members of society. No one wants to feel left out. Alienation breeds contempt.

Originally posted by dbates
Infertility can be medically treated in some cases,

What about the ones that can't? What about MY case? It's not a matter of being treated. Your argument is telling me that I shouldn't have the right to get married because I knew, before I got married, that I would never have a child. It's IMPOSSIBLE.

Why do we allow weddings of older couples? Because we don't micro manage the issue

But that's exactly what you're advocating. A separateness based on the ability to create a very specific benefit to society in the way of children. And then you're making exceptions for infertile, older and childless-by-choice couples.

(Please don't cite adoption or in vitro since that involves both sexes)

It always does. It's no big mystery that it takes a sperm and an egg to create a human being. But many people who cannot have children use these methods regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. It ALWAYS takes both sexes to create a child.

Originally posted by dbates
The homosexual couple still has nothing that sets it apart from being meaningful to anyone but the the two individuals involved.

Neither does the infertile couple. And why must a couple be "set apart" as meaningful or beneficial to society? I don't know of one person who got married to benefit society. I certainly didn't. I got married for selfish reasons. And it clearly wasn't to have a child.

Originally posted by dbates
The homosexual couple still has nothing that sets it apart from being meaningful to anyone but the the two individuals involved.

Just wanted to come back and state how logically fallacious this statement is. Homosexual couples do not live in a vacuum. Neither do homosexual individuals. By the context of the sttement above, it almost seems like an advocacy for ignoring the existence of homosexual individuals period.

But there are many other relationships that a homosexual has within the confines of society...work relationships, friendships as well as many other implicit societal contributions by virtue of participaing in the economic pursuits that everyone undertakes.

One could say that a happy person is more prductive. In this way, a homosexual couple...if marriage is what they want...benefits society a great deal better. Happiness begets happiness in many circumstances.

Yeahright... On the "Alienation breeds Contempt."

Originally posted by dbates
Homosexuals are not singled out but the UCMJ. You are not allowed to commit adultery, you are not allowed to date a superior. The list goes on and on. When you sign that paper and take an oath, you become U.S. government property. I've seen people get in trouble for getting a sunburn. Anything that hampers the mission is disallowed. Homosexuality can cause dissension among the troops, thus it is disallowed. If there were some benefit to being a homosexual, the Army would be the first one to embrace it. You can bet your life on that.

The same goes for the civil government. If it was proven that there were some civil benefit for homosexuals to marry, no doubt they would be given marriage licenses. Homosexuals can live together, give each other a power of attorney, sign an apartment lease together, and take out joint loans on a house. Why do they need the marriage license?

The people who speak up against homosexuality are not closet homosexuals any more than the members of Mother's Against Drunk Driving are closet drunks. This logic is junk science and has no hold on reality. If California votes no for homosexuality, then how much more does the majority of America just not see how homosexuality benefits them personally. Why do we need to encourage homosexuality? People can do this if they wish but there is no merit to encourage it.

Homosexuals need to quit having pity parades and protests, and start showing the actual benefit of their lifestyle if they want it to be embraced by America.

Let's play a question game...

Man/woman unions are a civil benefit because they are the only union that produce children for future generations. The civil contract helps promote the proper support of the child as it matures.

Homosexual unions are a benefit because they are the only union that....

...searching for answer

how about populaion control, how about loving adoptive parents to raise orphans.. i'm sure the list can on.. step outside the box.. who knows u may learn somthing

[edit on 5-2-2009 by dbates]

reply to post by BlueTriangle


You may not know this but homosexuality was considered to be a mental disorder up until December 15, 1973 when the American Psychiatric Association removed it from their list of official mental disorders. There are still many psychatrists who claim that this happened due to pressure exerted by gay rights groups and was merely an attempt to be politically correct in the new PC era

and it had nothing to do with the fact that the evedence said othewise.. interesting..

reply to post by BlueTriangle


How does denying the right to marry impact civil rights? Civil unions allow gay couples to exercise the same rights as a married couple. This entire argument seems to be over the right to use the word "marriage" and not the underlying rights themselves. Marriage is a religious sacrament that has been defined for thousands of years as a union of a man and a woman under God. Since the same rights are available under a civil union, it seems like this is just a fight to smack religion in the face which is pretty petty IMO.
since the church claims this to be a religous ceremony created by christianity.. its not.. marriage was around a lot longer.. and civil unions lable gays as second class citizens.. ok i give wheres the equality????

reply to post by dbates


Infertility can be medically treated in some cases, and couples that state they don't want children can change their mind at a later time.

and where does it say that same sex couples cant have children??
i know several couples that have children and technicly women can produce children without a male counterpart..

[edit on 5-2-2009 by scorand]

Originally posted by dbates
Infertility can be medically treated in some cases, and couples that state they don't want children can change their mind at a later time. Why do we allow weddings of older couples? Because we don't micro manage the issue and we want to encourage as many man/woman unions as possible. Why? Because only man/woman unions produce offspring. That's not to say that they always do or always will. But this is the only combination that works. It is impossible for homosexuals to have children under ANY circumstance. (Please don't cite adoption or in vitro since that involves both sexes)

But, you also must see that there are gray areas of society. The person for instance that creates too many children for them to be taken care of properly for instance are rarely married. As for offspring there are many instances where a homosexual couple does have to raise children say from a dead sibling or a family member having problems.

So while that inherited child was not produced by them they are part of the larger family unit around it to help make sure the child turns out fine. It also is not impossible either as many gay couples at times decide to have a child between two couples. Yes, it could be done before in vitro and has been done. While it did include both sexes on a temporary basis so the child could be produced that child could very well end up with four parents watching out for him/her.

Whom does the coupling of any two people benefit in the long run besides themselves? They can very well breed without a license as many in fact do. Or is it a contract between two people in the first place? Ask their relatives and friends and you might get a wide range of answers.

This is a certificate/benefits of bonding between two people whom wish to make a life together or is it regarded as merely a breeding license?


[edit on 5/2/2009 by toochaos4u]

reply to post by MemoryShock

It's not the job of the government to ensure your happiness. While it's stated that we have the right to a pursuit of happiness, there is no article in the Constitution that says the government must do everything possible to make you happy. The Constitution provides for equal opportunity. Not equal outcome. Aside from physical pain, happiness is simply a state of mind. I do not want the government to become thought police to ensure that an individual "thinks" that they are happy. There is nothing keeping a homosexual from being happy but their own logical fallacy.


If this is the lifestyle you choose knowing that you will be unable to marry, then that's your decision. Yes, I said the choice word. If it could be proven that homosexuality was not a choice, then the government would be obligated to recognize it. For now the best I've seen is an argument that some individuals had a homosexual disposition. A disposition is not a determinate. If you could take a DNA sample of a newborn and tell me it's sexual orientation, then I would be sympathetic to your concerns. Until that time it's like saying your being discriminated against for having a tattoo.

We can determine someone's ethnicity, heart condition, or even if they have Down Syndrome long before the person is even born. There is no such test for homosexuality. This suggests that it has more to do with psychology than anything else. This has been upheld by most scientific fields since Sigmund Freud brought up the concept of psycho sexual development.

First the science, then the acceptance. I think that's the order that this must proceed in.



[edit on 5-2-2009 by dbates]

reply to post by dbates


We can determine someone's ethnicity, heart condition, or even if they have Down Syndrome long before the person is even born. There is no such test for homosexuality. This suggests that it has more to do with psychology than anything else. This has been upheld by most scientific fields since Sigmund Freud brought up the concept of psycho sexual development.

hmm interesting.. is there a test for hetrosexuality?? i didnt think so.. remember biology has more to it than genetics

reply to post by dbates


That is just it, though.

In the case of marriage, the government does not give "equal opportunity". In the case of marriage, gays are not equal to straights in the eyes of the law and therefore do not have the same opportunity.

That in inherently unfair.

This is becomming, in my mind, a human rights issue. I can't simply fathom, nor do I believe, that homosexual behavior is in any way a choice so therefore this being said: it cements my opinion. Being in the military is one thing-but let's not forget these are tax paying citizens. If I were gay/lesbian/bi/transgender, and I was not afforded the same rights as my neighbors- I would not pay taxes. Period.

reply to post by dbates

If this is the lifestyle you choose knowing that you will be unable to marry, then that's your decision. Yes, I said the choice word. If it could be proven that homosexuality was not a choice, then the government would be obligated to recognize it. For now the best I've seen is an argument that some individuals had a homosexual disposition. A disposition is not a determinate. If you could take a DNA sample of a newborn and tell me it's sexual orientation, then I would be sympathetic to your concerns. Until that time it's like saying your being discriminated against for having a tattoo

u assume its a choice.. oh really when did u chose to be straight.. and if u did chose to be straight then u had to have had homo tendancies.. at least at some point while you were growing up..

reply to post by dbates


It's not the job of the government to ensure your happiness. While it's stated that we have the right to a pursuit of happiness, there is no article in the Constitution that says the government must do everything possible to make you happy. The Constitution provides for equal opportunity. Not equal outcome. Aside from physical pain, happiness is simply a state of mind. I do not want the government to become thought police to ensure that an individual "thinks" that they are happy. There is nothing keeping a homosexual from being happy but their own logical fallacy.
while the contitution doesnt say that the government has to make us happy it does protect us from tyrany and opression.. .. and dont make accusations about logical fallacy when your own can be pointed out so easiliy