Gay Marriage

[lawcat]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Then exactly why is relgion protected law cat?

I don't understand the question.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

and why can't gays be parents?

It is naturally impossible for two people of same sex to parent a child. Is that true?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by lawcat

It is naturally impossible for two people of same sex to parent a child. Is that true?

No. A parent is a person who will RAISE their child. To suggest that a parent is someone who can merely CONCEIVE a child is myopic and wrong.


Either way... We don't require opposite sex couples to prove their fertility or fecundity... we don't require them to promise they will have a child... we don't disallow the elderly from marrying... So all of this "child" talk is completely irrelevant to the topic... As explicitly noted in the OP.

Having children is a common byproduct of marriage, but is not a prerequisite nor requirement, neither for opposite sex nor for same sex couples.

Can we move on now from this irrelevant tangent?

[lawcat]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Can we move on now from this irrelevant tangent?

No we can not. Whatever you said there is completely irrelevant. yet, you refuse to acknowledge that it is not possible to combine two female strands and create a child.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by lawcat

I don't understand the question.



It is naturally impossible for two people of same sex to parent a child. Is that true?

No lawcat that is not true, why would you think so? I know several same sex couples who are parenting children and doing a very good job of it.

You stated that

Marriage is not protected because of religion.

I asked then why is marriage protected, I guess i should have said why is marriage protected from gays....

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by lawcat

Whatever you said there is completely irrelevant. yet, you refuse to acknowledge that it is not possible to combine two female strands and create a child.

My acknowledgment is not necessary since the ability to "create a child" is only peripherally related to the institution of marriage. Two individuals are never required to prove either their ability or willingness to conceive children before being allowed to wed.

I don't know how many different ways I can make this point before it sinks in and you begin to grasp it.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by lawcat

No we can not. Whatever you said there is completely irrelevant. yet, you refuse to acknowledge that it is not possible to combine two female strands and create a child.

First, no as far as I know it is not possible for two female strands of DNA to be combined to make a child but I wouldn't surprise me if it can eventually be done.

Second that is not what you asked, you said parent a child, not conceive a child and with artificial insemination conceiving a child is irrelevant as well. Parenting does not imply conceiving a child. a great many children are parented by people who are genetically unrelated to them. male couples and female couples can and often are very good at parenting children.

[lawcat]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

No lawcat that is not true, why would you think so? I know several same sex couples who are parenting children and doing a very good job of it.

When you come up with a way of combining two female strands to produce a fetus, let me know.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I asked then why is marriage protected, I guess i should have said why is marriage protected from gays....

Individuals are accorded limted constitutional protection to marry a partner of opposite sex for two reasons, neither of which is religious. One is natural: a man and a woman can conceive a child, and conitnue the family and the society. The second is history and tradition of basic economic unit of society, which is the natural family.

[lawcat]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

My acknowledgment is not necessary since the ability to "create a child" is only peripherally related to the institution of marriage. Two individuals are never required to prove either their ability or willingness to conceive children before being allowed to wed.

I don't know how many different ways I can make this point before it sinks in and you begin to grasp it.

You are raising some normative policy point which are not rationally related to the inquiry. The notion of family predates civilization. Without a man and a woman there is no civilization. This is very basic. If you can not grasp that, than you are not rational.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by lawcat

You are raising some normative policy point which are not rationally related to the inquiry. The notion of family predates civilization. Without a man and a woman there is no civilization. This is very basic. If you can not grasp that, than you are not rational.

Lawcat are you implying that marriage makes civilization possible or that gays marrying would bring down our civilization? Can you supply information that supports your contention that marriage or even family predates civilization?

Why does the idea of gays parenting children bother you so much? How could gays getting married effect you in any way?

[lawcat]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Lawcat are you implying that marriage makes civilization possible or that gays marrying would bring down our civilization? Can you supply information that supports your contention that marriage or even family predates civilization?

No doubt. This is a matter of prima facie evidence. If you contend that man + woman -> child = family is not a prerequisite for civilzation, than you are engaging me in irrational dicussion. We must agree that without a man and a woman creating a child, and ultimately a family, there is no civilization.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Why does the idea of gays parenting children bother you so much? How could gays getting married effect you in any way?

I am simply looking at it from a legal perspective. There are two avenues for legalizing gay marriage: legislative and judicial. The judicial avenue is foreclosed on history and tradition grounds, but may be open under equal protection of privacy and choice. The legislative avenue is always open based on the vote of the majority.