• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fertility and Same Sex Marriage

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This is not a thread to debate about polygamy. This thread is in reference to the issue of fertility in regard to same sex marriage. The only discernible difference between opposite sex couples and same sex couples is the ability to procreate and thus it is the crux of the same sex marriage debate.

From Walker's ruling of Prop 8.

"Proponents pointed only to a difference between same sex couples (who are incapable through sexual intercourse of producing offspring biologically related to both parties) and opposite sex couples (some of whom are capable of producing such offspring.) Proponents did not, however, advance any reason why the government may use sexual orientation as a proxy for fertility or why the government may need to take into account fertility when legislating." pg 122
Most traditional marriage people argue that marriage must be preserved as an institution of procreation, but our law does not reflect that reality. Opposite sex couples are not required to provide proof of fertility in order to get married. As such, opposite sex couples who are infertile, elderly, or who choose not to have children are not denied the right to marry. Same sex couples are just as capable of raising children as opposite sex couples and have the same options as infertile opposite sex couples, such as adoption or using a surrogate or sperm donor.

Why does the state have an interest in taking fertility into consideration with same sex couples when it does not do so with opposite sex couples? How is that not discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation?
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
This is not a thread to debate about polygamy. This thread is in reference to the issue of fertility in regard to same sex marriage. The only discernible difference between opposite sex couples and same sex couples is the ability to procreate and thus it is the crux of the same sex marriage debate.

From Walker's ruling of Prop 8.



Most traditional marriage people argue that marriage must be preserved as an institution of procreation, but our law does not reflect that reality. Opposite sex couples are not required to provide proof of fertility in order to get married. As such, opposite sex couples who are infertile, elderly, or who choose not to have children are not denied the right to marry. Same sex couples are just as capable of raising children as opposite sex couples and have the same options as infertile opposite sex couples, such as adoption or using a surrogate or sperm donor.

Why does the state have an interest in taking fertility into consideration with same sex couples when it does not do so with opposite sex couples? How is that not discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation?
the state does NOT have an interest, clearly.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,928
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
The whole argument is stupid. First off, LGBT people can have kids, not in a traditional way, but they still can. Secondly allowing gay people to marry won't change the number of straight people out there procreating, or change the way straight people behave in any way. It's just going to give LGBT the same rights under the law. There's no need to protect procreation, because if there's one thing we've learned from history, there is no way you can stop people from screwing, and that is obviously going to contain alot of hetero sex.
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,603
Reaction score
22,539
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Why does the state have an interest in taking fertility into consideration with same sex couples when it does not do so with opposite sex couples?
Here's the problem with this question. It presumes that the state has no interest in fertility with opposite sex marriage, when it could be argued that it does have an interest, it simply does not have the means to determine fertility in opposite sex marriages because to do so would be a violation of privacy rights.

Whereas, with SSM, there is no doubt at all regarding to the infertility of the coupling. With any OSM, there is some doubt.

Because of that, my opinion is that SSM proponents would be well-served by showing that adoption and alternative means for having children will ultimately occur if SSM is legalized.
 
Last edited:

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Here's the problem with this question. It presumes that the state has no interest in fertility with opposite sex marriage, when it could be argued that it does have an interest, it simply does not have the means to determine fertility in opposite sex marriages because to do so would be a violation of privacy rights.
What violation of privacy rights? If the government is truly interested in marriage simply for the sake of fertility, then it can make proof of fertility a requirement before issuing a marriage license. If fertility is a legitimate basis by which to deny same sex couples the right to marry, why is it not a legitimate basis by which to deny opposite sex couples the right to marry?

Whereas, with SSM, there is no doubt at all regarding to the infertility of the coupling. With any OSM, there is some doubt.

Because of that, my opinion is that SSM proponents would be well-served by showing that adoption and alternative means for having children will ultimately occur if SSM is legalized.
Those things occur even without marriage. It also has no relevance to the question. Why does the state have an interest in taking fertility into consideration with same sex couples when it does not do so with opposite sex couples?
 
Last edited:

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,603
Reaction score
22,539
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
What violation of privacy rights?
The gathering of medical information that is not pertinent to preventing harm from coming to another.


If the government is truly interested in marriage simply for the sake of fertility, then it can make proof of fertility a requirement before issuing a marriage license. If fertility is a legitimate basis by which to deny same sex couples the right to marry, why is it not a legitimate basis by which to deny opposite sex couples the right to marry?
One could consider a legitimate basis, but gathering the necessary information in order to make the determination is the problem.

Those things occur even without marriage. It also has no relevance to the question.
Ignoring and pretending there is no validity to the arguments of the other side simply won't help your cause. It is detrimental to the cause of SSM.

Why does the state have an interest in taking fertility into consideration with same sex couples when it does not do so with opposite sex couples?
Ignoring the answers and then typing the same flawed question won't help your cause either.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Here's the problem with this question. It presumes that the state has no interest in fertility with opposite sex marriage, when it could be argued that it does have an interest, it simply does not have the means to determine fertility in opposite sex marriages because to do so would be a violation of privacy rights.
Whereas, with SSM, there is no doubt at all regarding to the infertility of the coupling. With any OSM, there is some doubt.

Because of that, my opinion is that SSM proponents would be well-served by showing that adoption and alternative means for having children will ultimately occur if SSM is legalized.
not true. certainly people over 60 who marry can't have children. that's definitive in most cases, and yet there's no question of allowing them to marry.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The gathering of medical information that is not pertinent to preventing harm from coming to another.
The gathering? The government simply could require that opposite sex couples voluntarily provide proof of fertility. The government doesn't have to take the information against their will.

One could consider a legitimate basis, but gathering the necessary information in order to make the determination is the problem.
Not really. By your argument, the government has an interest in marriage mainly because of fertility. If people are unwilling to voluntarily provide proof of their fertility then they aren't satisfying that interest and should not be issued a marriage license until they produce offspring.

Ignoring and pretending there is no validity to the arguments of the other side simply won't help your cause. It is detrimental to the cause of SSM.
Well then answer the question. Why does the state have an interest in taking fertility into consideration with same sex couples when it does not do so with opposite sex couples? If there is validity to the argument, then let us see it.

Ignoring the answers and then typing the same flawed question won't help your cause either.
What is flawed about my answers?
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,603
Reaction score
22,539
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive


not true. certainly people over 60 who marry can't have children. that's definitive in most cases, and yet there's no question of allowing them to marry.


No, that's only a statistical liklihood. DEfinitive would mean that it was definite. But teh evidence suggests that it is not definite.
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,603
Reaction score
22,539
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The gathering? The government simply could require that opposite sex couples voluntarily provide proof of fertility. The government doesn't have to take the information against their will.
You realize that "requirement" and "Voluntarily" are mutually exclusive terms, right? You can't have a requirement for a voluntary action because voluntary actions cannot be required.


Not really. By your argument, the government has an interest in marriage mainly because of fertility. If people are unwilling to voluntarily provide proof of their fertility then they aren't satisfying that interest and should not be issued a marriage license until they produce offspring.
No, the fact is that the only reason the govenrment has any interest in marriage is children.

Children are the byproduct of fertility.

OSMs are innately fertile. SSMs are innately infertile.

Ergo, the reason behind defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.



Well then answer the question. Why does the state have an interest in taking fertility into consideration with same sex couples when it does not do so with opposite sex couples? If there is validity to the argument, then let us see it.
I did answer the question. You ignored that answer. Willful ignorance is not an argument.

What is flawed about my answers?
:confused: I said the question was flawed.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
No, that's only a statistical liklihood. DEfinitive would mean that it was definite. But teh evidence suggests that it is not definite.
ok.....75. that's would be definite, wouldn't it?
 

Your Star

Rage More!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,928
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
The real question here is how is SSM going to effect fertility? Will not allowing it decrease the number of gay people? No. Will allowing SSM decrease the number of straight people? No. I fail to see how SSM, or marriage at all effects fertility.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You realize that "requirement" and "Voluntarily" are mutually exclusive terms, right? You can't have a requirement for a voluntary action because voluntary actions cannot be required.
It would only be required for the license. And they can choose not to give the information, they just won't get a license until they produce offspring.

No, the fact is that the only reason the govenrment has any interest in marriage is children.

Children are the byproduct of fertility.

OSMs are innately fertile. SSMs are innately infertile.

Ergo, the reason behind defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.
If the main interest of marriage is children, then why are same sex couples who have children denied marriage? You can't have it both ways. Either marriage is mainly about fertility or it is mainly about children. If it is about fertility, then infertile opposite sex couples have no more right to marriage than same sex couples. If it is about children, then there is no basis by which to deny opposite sex couples or same sex couples the right to marriage, because both can provide loving, stable homes for children.

I did answer the question. You ignored that answer. Willful ignorance is not an argument.
Yes it did. It is clear that you are confused about what to believe. Either the right to marriage is based on fertiliity or it is based on children.

Of course, by arguing that it is based on fertility you are saying that a male serial killer in prison and a female prostitute working the street have more right to marry than a stable same sex couple with adopted children.

:confused: I said the question was flawed.
How is the question flawed?
 
Last edited:

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
14,156
Reaction score
5,625
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The only discernible difference between opposite sex couples and same sex couples is the ability to procreate and thus it is the crux of the same sex marriage debate.
The only discernible difference? Given that take, I would have to argue that the "crux" of the debate is whether we should consider all genders as equivalent. That is, if female-male couplings are indistiguishable from female-female couplings. Better yet - am I to believe that my marriage will be the same regardless of whether I choose a male or female mate?
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The only discernible difference? Given that take, I would have to argue that the "crux" of the debate is whether we should consider all genders as equivalent. That is, if female-male couplings are indistiguishable from female-female couplings. Better yet - am I to believe that my marriage will be the same regardless of whether I choose a male or female mate?
Are you not the person who argued that no relationship is superior to another as long as both the partners are happy?
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,603
Reaction score
22,539
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
ok.....75. that's would be definite, wouldn't it?
Not really.

1. Men are fertile until they die.

2. a 70 year old woman gave birth two years ago. It's impossible to guarantee that all women are infertile at 75.
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
14,156
Reaction score
5,625
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Are you not the person who argued that no relationship is superior to another as long as both the partners are happy?
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. What does one have to do with the other?
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. What does one have to do with the other?
I'm simply following your logic. It doesn't matter whether it is a male-female, male-male, or female-female coupling because as long as both partners are happy they are all equal.
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,603
Reaction score
22,539
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
It would only be required for the license.
then it isn't voluntary and it becomes an illegal search and seizure.

And they can choose not to give the information, they just won't get a license until they produce offspring.
That would run counter to the state's interest in marriage.

If the main interest of marriage is children, then why are same sex couples who have children denied marriage?
Now you might be starting to get my point. This is the direction the debate should be going in order to gain SSM rights. That SS couples can raise children despite the innate infertility of the coupling. Then show that the reason SSM is being fought for is along those lines. It fully defeats the oppositions resistance.

You can't have it both ways.
I don't want it both ways. I want SSM proponents to stop using falwed arguments in favor of SSM, and start using ones that act as adequate counter-arguments.

Either marriage is mainly about fertility or it is mainly about children. If it is about fertility, then infertile opposite sex couples have no more right to marriage than same sex couples. If it is about children, then there is no basis by which to deny opposite sex couples or same sex couples the right to marriage, because both can provide loving, stable homes for children.
Innate fertility is the basis of the man and woman definition for marriage because the state's interest in marriage is only about the raising of children. The best counter argument to the "man + woman" definition of marraige isn't gender discrimination, it's that SSM's are desired for the purposes of raising children. If that isn't the argument, civil unions would be enough.

Of course, by arguing that it is based on fertility you are saying that a male serial killer in prison and a female prostitute working the street have more right to marry than a stable same sex couple with adopted children.
:roll: when are you going to stop creating strawmen?



How is the question flawed?
Reread my first post.
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
14,156
Reaction score
5,625
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm simply following your logic. It doesn't matter whether it is a male-female, male-male, or female-female coupling because as long as both partners are happy they are all equal.
LOL that's certainly not logic I would use. Yes, I would not claim that one relationship is better than another based on sexual orientation - that doesn't mean they are all indistinguishable or that my marriage will be the same regardless of whether I choose a male or female mate.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
then it isn't voluntary and it becomes an illegal search and seizure.
I'm not sure you can back that up.

That would run counter to the state's interest in marriage.
Why? It doesn't change whether or not they are fertile, only if the state recognizes they are fertile. Basically you are arguing that marriage in the civil sense is the government recognizing the fertility of a couple. The government can't really do that unless the couples provides evidence that they are indeed fertile.

Now you might be starting to get my point. This is the direction the debate should be going in order to gain SSM rights. That SS couples can raise children despite the innate infertility of the coupling. Then show that the reason SSM is being fought for is along those lines. It fully defeats the oppositions resistance.
Let's make this clear.

1. You are arguiing that the state has an interest in fertility, not children, when it comes to marriage.
2. You are arguing that the same sex marriage side should argue children, not feriltiy, when it comes to the case.
3. Do you not see the fault in your logic? You are arguing that the issue is fertility, not children, and yet you want the same sex marriage side to argue children?

I don't want it both ways. I want SSM proponents to stop using falwed arguments in favor of SSM, and start using ones that act as adequate counter-arguments.
No, you don't want the same sex marriage side to argue that marriage has nothing to do with fertility which is the reality of how the law is actually practiced. You percieve that as a weak argument, even though you can't provide a sufficient ratoinal as to why it should be.

Innate fertility is the basis of the man and woman definition for marriage because the state's interest in marriage is only about the raising of children. The best counter argument to the "man + woman" definition of marraige isn't gender discrimination, it's that SSM's are desired for the purposes of raising children. If that isn't the argument, civil unions would be enough.
Whatever. If you like that argument, then have it. It isn''t relevant to the argument that Walker made and it isn't a sufficient Constitutional argument.

:roll: when are you going to stop creating strawmen?
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. If indeed you are arguing that marriage is based on fertility, then there is nothing false about that argument.
 
Last edited:

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
LOL that's certainly not logic I would use. Yes, I would not claim that one relationship is better than another based on sexual orientation - that doesn't mean they are all indistinguishable or that my marriage will be the same regardless of whether I choose a male or female mate.
Of course your marriage would be different. I imagine you would not be as happy with a female mate as you are with your male mate.
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,603
Reaction score
22,539
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Let's make this clear.

1. You are arguiing that the state has an interest in fertility, not children, when it comes to marriage.
2. You are arguing that the same sex marriage side should argue children, not feriltiy, when it comes to the case.
3. Do you not see the fault in your logic? You are arguing that the issue is fertility, not children, and yet you want the same sex marriage side to argue children?
Let's really make this clear:

This is your preconcieved notion, and it is incorrect. I've stated this numerous times, and you've ignored it every time. I even restated it in the post that you responded to with the above nonsese

"Innate fertility is the basis of the man and woman definition for marriage because the state's interest in marriage is only about the raising of children. The best counter argument to the "man + woman" definition of marraige isn't gender discrimination, it's that SSM's are desired for the purposes of raising children. If that isn't the argument, civil unions would be enough."

This is why I implored you to reread my posts without your preconceptions. Without doing this, you fall prey tro the creation of strawmen like the above.

It isn''t relevant to the argument that Walker made and it isn't a sufficient Constitutional argument.
Walker is simply one person with an opinion, but his opinion is not and will not be the final say on this. Taking the advice I gave in the other thread (post 113) will utterly defeat the opposition's arguments. Not taking it might end up screwing the SSM side royally.
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
14,156
Reaction score
5,625
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Of course your marriage would be different. I imagine you would not be as happy with a female mate as you are with your male mate.
How about if a person were bisexual? In your view the only difference would be the ability to procreate?
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Let's really make this clear:

This is your preconcieved notion, and it is incorrect. I've stated this numerous times, and you've ignored it every time. I even restated it in the post that you responded to with the above nonsese

"Innate fertility is the basis of the man and woman definition for marriage because the state's interest in marriage is only about the raising of children. The best counter argument to the "man + woman" definition of marraige isn't gender discrimination, it's that SSM's are desired for the purposes of raising children. If that isn't the argument, civil unions would be enough."

This is why I implored you to reread my posts without your preconceptions. Without doing this, you fall prey tro the creation of strawmen like the above.



Walker is simply one person with an opinion, but his opinion is not and will not be the final say on this. Taking the advice I gave in the other thread (post 113) will utterly defeat the opposition's arguments. Not taking it might end up screwing the SSM side royally.
We are only debating about what makes the best argument. I stand by my argument that the state has no interest in discriminating against same sex couples when it comes to marriage on the basis of fertility. You can stand by your argument that marriage is about raising children and same sex couples raise kids just as well as opposite sex couples. I see my argument as a better Constitutional argument as the Equal Protection Clause and levels of scrutiny do not allow discrimination on the basis of sex unless it is based on a legitimate state interest. Fertility is clearly not a legitimate state interest because opposite sex couples are not denied marriage if they are infertile. I cannot see how your argument is a Constitutional argument.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom