- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
"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
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
The gathering of medical information that is not pertinent to preventing harm from coming to another.
One could consider a legitimate basis, but gathering the necessary information in order to make the determination is the problem.
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.
Ignoring the answers and then typing the same flawed question won't help your cause either.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What is flawed about my answers?
No, that's only a statistical liklihood. DEfinitive would mean that it was definite. But teh evidence suggests that it is not definite.
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.
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.
I did answer the question. You ignored that answer. Willful ignorance is not an argument.
I said the question was flawed.
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?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?
ok.....75. that's would be definite, wouldn't it?
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. What does one have to do with the other?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?
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.
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.
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.
How is the question flawed?
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.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.
then it isn't voluntary and it becomes an illegal search and seizure.
That would run counter to the state's interest in 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.
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.
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.
:roll: when are you going to stop creating strawmen?
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.
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?
It isn''t relevant to the argument that Walker made and it isn't a sufficient Constitutional argument.
How about if a person were bisexual? In your view the only difference would be the ability to procreate?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.
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 use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?