Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Most couples, Qball, who marry, hetero or homo, want children. Your point below is insufficient to limit marriage to heterosexuals.
Qball writes, "That's not their reasoning. Of course there are couples who cannot or will not have children. I'm not saying every couple can or even should have children. I'm saying the one of the overarching reasons for legal marriage is due to the fact that men and women have children. That's a fundamental by-product of romantic unions between two people of the opposite sex."
Then, you're wrong.
And you're trolling.
No, I'm pointing out that you're wrong.
And you're trolling.
No, I'm pointing out that you're wrong.
...and you're trolling.
Neither of you are trolling. Urban Dictionary: trolling The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue. Trolling does not mean just making rude remarks: Shouting swear words at someone doesn't count as trolling; it's just flaming, and isn't funny. Spam isn't trolling either; it pisses people off, but it's lame. // The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help. // Trolling requires deceiving; any trolling that doesn't involve deceiving someone isn't trolling at all; it's just stupid. As such, your victim must not know that you are trolling; if he does, you are an unsuccessful troll.
You are defining marriage for only the way you see it, Qball, but the legal sanctioning of that view is falling by the wayside. You are unable and will continue to be unable to stop it from redefining as universal marriage.
But . . . I make you this promise. That if anyone tries to make you marry someone of your own sex, I your superhero will fly to your rescue and defeat the evildoers.
But procreation is a big part of the reason there is a legal institution of marriage to begin with. You're right that it's also a contract between two committed individuals, but that doesn't speak to the unique union of marriage. Without procreation you just have two people wanting to call themselves married to attain a type of social distinction while not fulfilling one of its most fundamental purposes.
Lets assume we have a man and woman who wish to marry, however the woman is infertile. According to the reasoning of some, because this union could not produce children, it should not be allowed.
That's not their reasoning. Of course there are couples who cannot or will not have children. I'm not saying every couple can or even should have children. I'm saying the one of the overarching reasons for legal marriage is due to the fact that men and women have children. That's a fundamental by-product of romantic unions between two people of the opposite sex.
Same-sex couples do not produce children, which isn't to say gays and lesbians can't have their own kids or even bring kids into a familial fold. But whereas it's intrinsic to heterosexual unions, it fundamentally is not to same-sex couples, which to many people creates a clear difference that doesn't require we treat those couples as though they're the same.
And there are fertile opposite-sex couples who elect not to have children; no state would perceive either union as lesser than a union with offspring.
Consequently, the contract of marriage can not be conditioned upon the ability to, or desire to, have children.
As the Court noted in Lawrence, citing Bowers:
ndividual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons. 478 U.S., at 216 (footnotes and citations omitted).
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
Since the decision to have children or not or any other aspect of an intimate relationship, in the context of marriage or not is protected by the fundamental right of privacy, the state may not forbid any couple from marrying because that union wont produce children.
With this requirement not in play, therefore, the state has no authority to disallow same-sex couples from marrying.
The state couldn't deny one heterosexual couple a marriage license over another simply because one has children and the other doesn't, true. But we're talking about the definition of marriage and why it exists and why it doesn't tend to include same-sex couples. It does become a matter of privacy when we're talking about a type of couple that potentially could procreate and the discretion they use to determine whether or not to parent. It's less about privacy when talking about legalizing other forms of marriage that would not procreate regardless if it was a requirement or not.
And you keep using the word "requirement"...I didn't say anyone was required to have children. I don't think anyone really has said it was a requirement of marriage that people have children. The point is, many of the benefits tied to marriage exist given the fact that men and women tend to have children. They don't exist just as a gift of sorts for being in a romantically fulfilling relationship.
Same-sex couples do not produce children, which isn't to say gays and lesbians can't have their own kids or even bring kids into a familial fold. But whereas it's intrinsic to heterosexual unions, it fundamentally is not to same-sex couples, which to many people creates a clear difference that doesn't require we treat those couples as though they're the same.
The state couldn't deny one heterosexual couple a marriage license over another simply because one has children and the other doesn't, true. But we're talking about the definition of marriage and why it exists and why it doesn't tend to include same-sex couples. It does become a matter of privacy when we're talking about a type of couple that potentially could procreate and the discretion they use to determine whether or not to parent. It's less about privacy when talking about legalizing other forms of marriage that would not procreate regardless if it was a requirement or not.
And you keep using the word "requirement"...I didn't say anyone was required to have children. I don't think anyone really has said it was a requirement of marriage that people have children. The point is, many of the benefits tied to marriage exist given the fact that men and women tend to have children. They don't exist just as a gift of sorts for being in a romantically fulfilling relationship.
The Bible is not properly understood by the far right crowd today is the problem.No it isn't. God created Man and Woman. He said man is to cleave unto his Wife. Read the Bible before you say stupid things like that, you would not look as foolish.
Thankfully......our laws are not ruled by the bible
The Bible is not properly understood by the far right crowd today is the problem.Thankfully......our laws are not ruled by the bible
Radical liberals are now trying to redefine the bible. Well that's nothing new.
God never created man and man he created man and woman the end. you lost move along.
You are defining marriage for only the way you see it, Qball, but the legal sanctioning of that view is falling by the wayside. You are unable and will continue to be unable to stop it from redefining as universal marriage.
But . . . I make you this promise. That if anyone tries to make you marry someone of your own sex, I your superhero will fly to your rescue and defeat the evildoers.
This...isn't really a response to what I said, but okay. I mean, it's a little silly to say it's just the way I see it when my bottom line is marriage is and should remain the unique union of a man and a woman, which is what most people who have weighed in the issue have concluded as well.
The Bible is not properly understood by the far right crowd today is the problem.
Radical liberals are now trying to redefine the bible. Well that's nothing new.
God never created man and man he created man and woman the end. you lost move along.
Which is entirely irrelevant. The Laws of America are not, and should not be based on the bible.
the U.S. military says it's ok to fuck animals.Actually, several states, DC, and the US military disagree with you.
It's changing, and that is OK.
You are defining marriage for only the way you see it, Qball, but the legal sanctioning of that view is falling by the wayside. You are unable and will continue to be unable to stop it from redefining as universal marriage.
But . . . I make you this promise. That if anyone tries to make you marry someone of your own sex, I your superhero will fly to your rescue and defeat the evildoers.
This...isn't really a response to what I said, but okay. I mean, it's a little silly to say it's just the way I see it when my bottom line is marriage is and should remain the unique union of a man and a woman, which is what most people who have weighed in the issue have concluded as well.
Radical liberals are now trying to redefine the bible. Well that's nothing new.
God never created man and man he created man and woman the end. you lost move along.
Which is entirely irrelevant. The Laws of America are not, and should not be based on the bible.
Well dumb ass where in the hell do you think some of America's laws are based on? Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bare false witness
Which is entirely irrelevant. The Laws of America are not, and should not be based on the bible.
Well dumb ass where in the hell do you think some of America's laws are based on? Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bare false witness
Adultery is not a crime. Lying is in itself not a crime. Murder is a crime in many places that do not adhere, nor ever adhered to Christian ideology. Theft is a crime in almost all places.
try again.
Well dumb ass where in the hell do you think some of America's laws are based on? Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bare false witness
the U.S. military says it's ok to fuck animals.Actually, several states, DC, and the US military disagree with you.
It's changing, and that is OK.
This...isn't really a response to what I said, but okay. I mean, it's a little silly to say it's just the way I see it when my bottom line is marriage is and should remain the unique union of a man and a woman, which is what most people who have weighed in the issue have concluded as well.
Well dumb ass where in the hell do you think some of America's laws are based on? Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bare false witness
Common sense and a motivation to protect the populace against criminals.
Well dumb ass where in the hell do you think some of America's laws are based on? Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bare false witness
Adultery is not a crime. Lying is in itself not a crime. Murder is a crime in many places that do not adhere, nor ever adhered to Christian ideology. Theft is a crime in almost all places.
try again.
Do you want to try that again?
Adultery, in many states, is still a crime - USATODAY.com
