I support this, change my mind.

Vaulk

The irony here is the use of a showcase tactic created by Steven Crowder (A hardcore conservative and Republican fanboy who makes it his pleasure to destroy liberal ideas by challenging college grade idiots living in an echo chamber to produce a single valid argument against his stance) to present a liberal idea.

smoothie

@Vaulk I would love to see Crowder do "Same-sex marriage is wrong, change my mind". Imagine the reaction on a college campus, he would probably get his channel deleted too.

I doubt he could defend this stance that well, but it would certainly be fun to watch.

RickeyD

@YeshuaRedeemed ; It matters not what you support but what is Truth and sustainable and good and decent and moral and holy.  There is NO such entity as Gay Marriage or Same-sex Marriage. You can cry, moan, stomp your feet, hold your breath till you're blue in the face...marriage can only manifest between one-man/one-woman becoming one-flesh for life.  Anything else is an abomination, a facade, sin, demonically-based and will be judged as same lest the participants repent of sin, STOP living in immorality, and seek redemption, forgiveness, by trusting-believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Mediator for our sins.

smoothie

@RickeyD says your faith which is not the law of government nor reality. Get real

RickeyD

@smoothie ; My faith and hope are in Jesus Christ and His Crucifixion for me.

Tylerjirkovsky_

If you have no way of reproducing a baby you actually dont help society progress + when you press your ideals in the media that makes it seem like your cool, and that's why more and more teen girls convert to being gay Intel thay realize thay are not getting the attention that whant this dosent make them cool and that generally thay look like dumb asses.
But if you really like being gay I'm mean good for you im not guna stop you 

YeshuaBought

Vaulk said:

The irony here is the use of a showcase tactic created by Steven Crowder (A hardcore conservative and Republican fanboy who makes it his pleasure to destroy liberal ideas by challenging college grade idiots living in an echo chamber to produce a single valid argument against his stance) to present a liberal idea.

Steven Crowder has nothing to do with this. I support marriage equality, and the bigot does not. Stay on topic, or leave.

YeshuaBought

Tylerjirkovsky_ said:

If you have no way of reproducing a baby you actually dont help society progress + when you press your ideals in the media that makes it seem like your cool, and that's why more and more teen girls convert to being gay Intel thay realize thay are not getting the attention that whant this dosent make them cool and that generally thay look like dumb asses.
But if you really like being gay I'm mean good for you im not guna stop you 

So infertile people don't help society? How about people like me, who don't want children?

MayCaesar

A marriage is a mutually consensual contract. There is no reason to deny anyone the right to sign such a contract. And by the same token, more than two people can sign such contract simultaneously, so marriages involving three or more individuals should be permitted as well.

Unfortunately, human rights advocates tend to focus on narrow issues, instead of taking their position to its logical end. Homosexual marriage is good and all, but it is only a small subset of all types of marriages that also should be legalised. When an organisation emerges that dares to say openly, "We disapprove of marriages between children and parents, but they should be legalised nonetheless", then I will be pleased.

YeshuaBought

MayCaesar said:

A marriage is a mutually consensual contract. There is no reason to deny anyone the right to sign such a contract. And by the same token, more than two people can sign such contract simultaneously, so marriages involving three or more individuals should be permitted as well.

Unfortunately, human rights advocates tend to focus on narrow issues, instead of taking their position to its logical end. Homosexual marriage is good and all, but it is only a small subset of all types of marriages that also should be legalised. When an organisation emerges that dares to say openly, "We disapprove of marriages between children and parents, but they should be legalised nonetheless", then I will be pleased.

Agreed.

Vaulk

YeshuaRedeemed said:

Vaulk said:

The irony here is the use of a showcase tactic created by Steven Crowder (A hardcore conservative and Republican fanboy who makes it his pleasure to destroy liberal ideas by challenging college grade idiots living in an echo chamber to produce a single valid argument against his stance) to present a liberal idea.

Steven Crowder has nothing to do with this. I support marriage equality, and the bigot does not. Stay on topic, or leave.

So you admit to using a debate tactic created by a bigot to present your argument. 

smoothie

MayCaesar said:

When an organisation emerges that dares to say openly, "We disapprove of marriages between children and parents, but they should be legalised nonetheless", then I will be pleased.

The problem is that people think that supporting legalization of something means they must 100% support it or do it. This was a huge problem concerning legalization of same-sex marriage, people thought that supporting it meant they would be seen as engaging in same-sex acts. Could say the same thing regarding incest/polagamy marriages and the privatization of marriage.

Łåśåğñūţ

@RickeyD I dont support gay marriage but your using your religion as reason. And also pushing it against people. Very silly of you to do that. Being that your religion is a lie aswell. 

Łåśåğñūţ

@RickeyD god did not make humans, they evolved over time from other animals, and he didn't make them either. Because the "first people" where adam an eve, said by the bible. But the pictures of them have belly buttons, they where born from somthing clearly. Can god get pregnant now?

John_C_87

smoothie said:

MayCaesar said:

When an organisation emerges that dares to say openly, "We disapprove of marriages between children and parents, but they should be legalised nonetheless", then I will be pleased.

The problem is that people think that supporting legalization of something means they must 100% support it or do it. This was a huge problem concerning legalization of same-sex marriage, people thought that supporting it meant they would be seen as engaging in same-sex acts. Could say the same thing regarding incest/polagamy marriages and the privatization of marriage.

Smoothie

The only problem tested by law is there is no practical way to make perjury legal to allow same gender marriage to be a legally enforceable likelihood. In the point of homosexuality which has no necessity to be a focus of public likelihood of children like marriage. All actions of child creation that takes place only happen when either of the men seek a child. The mother of the child and father of the child, no matter what are the focus of union by both law and terms of likelihood in a civil union marriage.

Two men are Binvir bound by a partnership and no illegal restriction is paced on witnesses of a longstanding public likelihood takes place. Meaning no perjury. A reluctance chase the crime perjury as it is not discovered by the courts does not make it legal. Ever.

RickeyD

@Łåśåğñūţ ; God created human KIND...not evolution, silly. Please don't be the fool that buys the lies of Darwin and don't die in Hell.

all4actt

@RickeyD

You said>>>becoming one-flesh for life.

Does this mean your radical (in my opinion) Christian belief that sex is only for the purpose of procreation?  If it is. Is it also therefore your belief that after a women is unable to bare children that sex is no longer allowed, even within marriage, like the Roman Catholic Church use to premote?

Spot

Gay relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships. If everyone were gay, society would cease to exist. While this would never happen, it shows that the two types of relationships are not equal.

Happy_Killbot

@Spot You are wrong.

https://www.healthline.com/health/artificial-insemination

There is nothing requiring heterosexual relationships to exist in order for our society to exist, only people to give birth and parents to raise the children. Just because it is different, doesn't mean that it is not possible.

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot You are wrong.

https://www.healthline.com/health/artificial-insemination

There is nothing requiring heterosexual relationships to exist in order for our society to exist, only people to give birth and parents to raise the children. Just because it is different, doesn't mean that it is not possible.

Nobody is giving birth if there are no heterosexual relationships. You still need a male and female for artificial insemination to work.

Happy_Killbot

@Spot Why does that have to be a relationship? There need only be a sperm and egg donor. You got sex-ed in school right?

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot Why does that have to be a relationship? There need only be a sperm and egg donor. You got sex-ed in school right?

My point is that gay relationships will never produce children. Only male-female relations will produce children regardless of which method is used.

Happy_Killbot

@Spot Think outside the box a little.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy

A society where everyone was homosexual would totally work, it would just be different from what we currently have.

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot Think outside the box a little.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy

A society where everyone was homosexual would totally work, it would just be different from what we currently have.

Right, so you would still have to rely on male-female relations for society to continue to exist. Gay relationships will never produce any children.

Happy_Killbot

@Spot Alright, but this is a mute point, because children can still be born and raised in this society. Suppose when gay couples wanted to have children, they entered into a pseudo-partnership with lesbian couples, who would agree to give birth to the children who the gay couple would then raise. This would work given the right legal structures surrounding it.

Given our current situation where homosexual couples are an extreme minority, the same is still possible because surrogates can and do exist, so gay couples can still raise children or adopt them. This is only a problem if you make the assumption that only heterosexual couples can have and raise kids, which just isn't true.

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot Alright, but this is a mute point, because children can still be born and raised in this society. Suppose when gay couples wanted to have children, they entered into a pseudo-partnership with lesbian couples, who would agree to give birth to the children who the gay couple would then raise. This would work given the right legal structures surrounding it.

Given our current situation where homosexual couples are an extreme minority, the same is still possible because surrogates can and do exist, so gay couples can still raise children or adopt them. This is only a problem if you make the assumption that only heterosexual couples can have and raise kids, which just isn't true.

Even if I were to accept that artificial-insemination is a good/natural way to populate the world, the children could only be born and raised if there are male-female relations. Without them, there are no children. So, I don't see how anyone could argue that gay relations could be equal to heterosexual relations when one is biologically prevented from producing children. You could argue that this difference does not matter, however, you can't say that both relationships are equal.

smoothie

Spot said:

Right, so you would still have to rely on male-female relations for society to continue to exist. Gay relationships will never produce any children.

Male-female surrogacy and artificial insemination classify as "relationships"? I should probably go find the person who got my sperm from the bank and take them on a date then

Gay relationships can produce children, here's how;

1. Gay couple decides to raise a child

2. They reach out to surrogacy or artificial insemination (producing the child)

3. Raise the child

In this way, gay relationships can produce children which would have otherwise not been produced.

Spot

smoothie said:

Spot said:

Right, so you would still have to rely on male-female relations for society to continue to exist. Gay relationships will never produce any children.

Male-female surrogacy and artificial insemination classify as "relationships"? I should probably go find the person who got my sperm from the bank and take them on a date then

Gay relationships can produce children, here's how;

1. Gay couple decides to raise a child

2. They reach out to surrogacy or artificial insemination (producing the child)

3. Raise the child

In this way, gay relationships can produce children.

I used the word "relations" when I referred to artificial-insemination. Point two disproves your entire argument. Gay relationships are not producing the children. They are biologically prevented from doing so.

Happy_Killbot

@Spot There is nothing preventing a homosexual couple from raising a child except the reluctance of society to accept that it is a perfectly valid form of relationship.

While it is true that a gay couple will not naturally produce children on account of they lack the necessary reproductive organs, that should not preclude our legal and moral obligation to treat people as equals, and this ought to include the equality in rights to marry however the individuals choose.

Biological inequality should have no bearing on legal inequality.

smoothie

Spot said:

Point two disproves your entire argument. Gay relationships are not producing the children. They are biologically prevented from doing so.

No, it doesn't, because there wouldn't be any producing of this child without a gay relationship existing and deciding to raise a child. It does not have to be biological when the child is being produced because of the decisions of the same-sex couple.

Artificial insemination is not related to any heterosexual/homosexual sexuality, and will still exist regardless of the sexuality of the parents requesting it.

Is it because a male and female biologically must both be involved in some way? That does not matter when either the male or female heterosexual/homosexual sexuality is completely void in the process of artificial insemination.

Your position would make sense if an all homosexual population meant only the existence of one gender in society, which it clearly does not.

Homosexual relationships can biologically produce children. It just takes more steps than a heterosexual one

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot There is nothing preventing a homosexual couple from raising a child except the reluctance of society to accept that it is a perfectly valid form of relationship.

While it is true that a gay couple will not naturally produce children on account of they lack the necessary reproductive organs, that should not preclude our legal and moral obligation to treat people as equals, and this ought to include the equality in rights to marry however the individuals choose.

Biological inequality should have no bearing on legal inequality.

But that is a separate argument. The point I was making is simply that the relationships are not equal in the sense that they cannot both produce children. And you seem to agree with me when you say that there is "biological inequality." Legally speaking, anything can happen if you have the right leader in charge. As for the law, it has often changed in our society. At one point, the law once permitted slavery. Obviously, this is no longer the case. Biologically speaking, African-Americans have always been people. Therefore, biology should be taken into account when having these discussions.

Spot

smoothie said:

Spot said:

Point two disproves your entire argument. Gay relationships are not producing the children. They are biologically prevented from doing so.

No, it doesn't, because there wouldn't be any producing of this child without a gay relationship existing and deciding to raise a child. It does not have to be biological when the child is being produced because of the decisions of the same-sex couple.

Artificial insemination is not related to any heterosexual/homosexual sexuality, and will still exist regardless of the sexuality of the parents requesting it.

Is it because a male and female biologically must both be involved in some way? That does not matter when either the male or female heterosexual/homosexual sexuality is completely void in the process of artificial insemination.

Your position would make sense if an all homosexual population meant only the existence of one gender in society, which it clearly does not

The decision of the gay-couple does not produce the children. They can ask people to produce children for them, however, they can never produce the children themselves. Artificial insemination does relate to heterosexual sexuality. Obviously, you are not going to get any children without contributions made from males and females. Furthermore, even if I were to agree that the world could survive off of artificial insemination, this is still a case where homosexuals would be relying on male-female relations to populate the world. 

smoothie

@Spot

Spot said:

The decision of the gay-couple does not produce the children. They can ask people to produce children for them, however, they can never produce the children themselves.

The decision is the first step, asking people is the second. It does not matter that they can produce the children themselves when they are still being produced, the argument is not "can homosexual couples impregnate each other", it is "can homosexual couples produce children". The decisions from homosexual relationships do produce children which would have otherwise never been produced. I have already proven this.

Spot said:

 Artificial insemination does relate to heterosexual sexuality.

The sexuality (heterosexual/homosexual) of the surrogate mother/father does not matter at all. A homosexual woman conceives from sperm from any man, and a homosexual man can impregnate any woman.

Spot said:

Obviously, you are not going to get any children without contributions made from males and females. Furthermore, even if I were to agree that the world could survive off of artificial insemination, this is still a case where homosexuals would be relying on male-female relations to populate the world. 

These "relations" are not a relationship. Using your definition, homosexual "relations" will not result in a child but a "relationship" can by requesting a "relation" of a man and woman biological interaction. It would just need another decision from the surrogate, which still produces a child from the decision of the homosexual relationship.

This is your original argument: "Gay relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships. If everyone were gay, society would cease to exist. While this would never happen, it shows that the two types of relationships are not equal."

MayCaesar

Spot said:

Gay relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships. If everyone were gay, society would cease to exist. While this would never happen, it shows that the two types of relationships are not equal.

This is a poor argument against gay marriage. First of all, if everyone was anything, society would cease to exist. How about everyone being a doctor, for example? We would all die of starvation due to the lack of food producers. Does this mean that doctors should not be allowed to exist? You know the answer.

Second, with modern technology, we do not need any sexual intercourse between people whatsoever to reproduce. Perhaps at this point in time artificial reproduction is not sustainable, but it will be one day.

Third, there are heterosexual relationships that do not lead to reproduction as well, yet the law says nothing against them.

Fourth, homosexual relationships can lead to reproduction in an indirect way; for example, one person could agree to have sex with a person of the opposite sex they are not in a relationship with, with a prior contract signed giving the child to them.

Finally, even if we dismiss all these notions, it is clear that in the modern society marriage is about more than just sex/reproduction. Marriage is, first and foremost, about love and devotion to each other, and that is pretty independent from the people's sex life.

It is true that these two types of relationships are not equal; by definition, they are different. I fail to see how this difference materialises in undesirability of one of them.

Happy_Killbot

@Spot Let's take this argument to it's absurd conclusion. If the marriage of homosexual couples should not be permitted on grounds that they can not produce offspring among themselves, then this would imply that individuals who are made sterile or for whatever reason can not have children should not be permitted to marry either.

This is not a good argument against marriage equality or the possibility of marriage equality because it fails to provide any real reason to not allow marriage, so it basically just stating a simple fact that no one will disagree with. In your original comment you did not say relations, you said relationship:

Spot said:

Gay relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships. If everyone were gay, society would cease to exist. While this would never happen, it shows that the two types of relationships are not equal.

So from this we can conclude that we are talking about the actual marital relationships and not social relationships with people who are not part of the marriage. This would be equivalent to saying that some marriages are not equal because the partners are both short, or have bellow average strength.

Spot

The decision is the first step, asking people is the second. It does not matter that they can produce the children themselves when they are still being produced, the argument is not "can homosexual couples impregnate each other", it is "can homosexual couples produce children". The decisions from homosexual relationships do produce children which would have otherwise never been produced. I have already proven this.

The sexuality (heterosexual/homosexual) of the surrogate mother/father does not matter at all. A homosexual woman conceives from sperm from any man, and a homosexual man can impregnate any woman.

These "relations" are not a relationship. Using your definition, homosexual "relations" will not result in a child but a "relationship" can by requesting a "relation" of a man and woman biological interaction. It would just need another decision from the surrogate, which still produces a child from the decision of the homosexual relationship.

This is your original argument: "Gay relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships. If everyone were gay, society would cease to exist. While this would never happen, it shows that the two types of relationships are not equal."

If you were to order a television on Amazon, you would not come to the conclusion that you made the product because you were willing to buy it. I was not initially referring to artificial insemination in my first post. Someone else brought it up to counter my point about society not existing if everybody was gay.

Spot

MayCaesar said:

Spot said:

Gay relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships. If everyone were gay, society would cease to exist. While this would never happen, it shows that the two types of relationships are not equal.

This is a poor argument against gay marriage. First of all, if everyone was anything, society would cease to exist. How about everyone being a doctor, for example? We would all die of starvation due to the lack of food producers. Does this mean that doctors should not be allowed to exist? You know the answer.

Second, with modern technology, we do not need any sexual intercourse between people whatsoever to reproduce. Perhaps at this point in time artificial reproduction is not sustainable, but it will be one day.

Third, there are heterosexual relationships that do not lead to reproduction as well, yet the law says nothing against them.

Fourth, homosexual relationships can lead to reproduction in an indirect way; for example, one person could agree to have sex with a person of the opposite sex they are not in a relationship with, with a prior contract signed giving the child to them.

Finally, even if we dismiss all these notions, it is clear that in the modern society marriage is about more than just sex/reproduction. Marriage is, first and foremost, about love and devotion to each other, and that is pretty independent from the people's sex life.

It is true that these two types of relationships are not equal; by definition, they are different. I fail to see how this difference materialises in undesirability of one of them.

This thread is about marriage equality. Therefore, I made an argument showing that homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships which you agree with at the end of your response. They literally cannot birth the same effects. It is not a poor argument, I am simply stating a biological fact. Furthermore, society would exist if all people were heterosexuals. Even if artificial insemination was to be regularly used, no gay couple would be producing any children in those cases. The fact that some heterosexuals cannot produce children is irrelevant. My argument showed that the two types of relationships are not the same. 

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot Let's take this argument to it's absurd conclusion. If the marriage of homosexual couples should not be permitted on grounds that they can not produce offspring among themselves, then this would imply that individuals who are made sterile or for whatever reason can not have children should not be permitted to marry either.

This is not a good argument against marriage equality or the possibility of marriage equality because it fails to provide any real reason to not allow marriage, so it basically just stating a simple fact that no one will disagree with. In your original comment you did not say relations, you said relationship:

Spot said:

Gay relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships. If everyone were gay, society would cease to exist. While this would never happen, it shows that the two types of relationships are not equal.

So from this we can conclude that we are talking about the actual marital relationships and not social relationships with people who are not part of the marriage. This would be equivalent to saying that some marriages are not equal because the partners are both short, or have bellow average strength.

Again, my argument was simply that gay marriage is not equal to heterosexual marriage since they cannot birth the same effects. Don't say you are for marriage equality when the relationships are not equal. That is what this thread was originally about. I said "relationships" in my original post because I was not initially talking about artificial insemination. You brought that up after I typed that post. You have already agreed that there is "biological inequality." So, we seem to be on the same page.

MayCaesar

@Spot

Why is that fact irrelevant? Your argument is literally based on the fact that homosexual couples do not reproduce. The fact that some heterosexual couples do not reproduce either undermines the distinction you are making.

These types of relationships are different, but they are not different in the aspect your argument makes an attribution to. Nor is that aspect relevant with regards to legality of marriage.

I fail to see what the fact that society would exist if all people were heterosexual, but would not if all people were homosexual, has to do with anything. Neither is the case in the real world.

Spot

MayCaesar said:

@Spot

Why is that fact irrelevant? Your argument is literally based on the fact that homosexual couples do not reproduce. The fact that some heterosexual couples do not reproduce either undermines the distinction you are making.

These types of relationships are different, but they are not different in the aspect your argument makes an attribution to. Nor is that aspect relevant with regards to legality of marriage.

I fail to see what the fact that society would exist if all people were heterosexual, but would not if all people were homosexual, has to do with anything. Neither is the case in the real world.

Once again, my argument was to show that gay marriage is not equal to heterosexual marriage. I supported this by stating a biological fact. Yes, there are sterile people and they are the exception. You are missing the point. There is zero chance that any children could be produced by a gay relationship. The two relationships cannot birth the same effects. Sure, sterile people and eunuchs would be obvious exceptions. They cannot produce children regardless of whom they decide to get involved with. Therefore, they are irrelevant in this conversation. Besides, people that are sterile cannot have kids because of various medical reasons. When it comes to homosexuals, none of these medical issues will prevent them from having children. They simply do not have the ability to produce children period.

Spot

MayCaesar said:

@Spot

Why is that fact irrelevant? Your argument is literally based on the fact that homosexual couples do not reproduce. The fact that some heterosexual couples do not reproduce either undermines the distinction you are making.

These types of relationships are different, but they are not different in the aspect your argument makes an attribution to. Nor is that aspect relevant with regards to legality of marriage.

I fail to see what the fact that society would exist if all people were heterosexual, but would not if all people were homosexual, has to do with anything. Neither is the case in the real world.

I forgot to respond to your last point. You said "if everyone was anything, society would cease to exist." Therefore I pointed out that society would be fine if all people were heterosexuals.

Dee

@Spot

*******Again, my argument was simply that gay marriage is not equal to heterosexual


Nor is hetrosexual marriage equal to gay marriage so what?

*****marriage since they cannot birth the same effects.

How does this make one marriage more worthy than another?

*******Don't say you are for marriage equality when the relationships are not equal

What makes a relationship equal?

MayCaesar

@Spot

First, that is not true: homosexuals can produce children, they simply choose not to as they prefer male sex partners - similarly, there are heterosexuals that can produce children, but choose not to. Second, this discussion concerns gay marriage, and if you want to advocate against gay marriage based on lack of reproduction, then you should advocate against any marriage which does not lead to reproduction - and since it is never possible to say in advance whether reproduction will take place or not, marriage should only be allowed for those couples which have already produced children. Which is a pretty strange stance to take.

And third, you are also not correct in claiming that society cannot exist with all people being homosexual. Again, homosexual people can reproduce. In theory, there could be society in which everyone is homosexual, but men and women sometimes come together purely for reproduction purposes, even if the sex act between them repulses them.
Turn this around: suppose only homosexual sex could lead to reproduction. Now, you are heterosexual and want children really badly. Would swallowing your pride and laying down with a man for once be too much for you to do for the sake of making your dream come true? I do not know about you, but I would do it.

And even if a purely homosexual society could not exist - so what? Again, a purely doctor society cannot exist either, yet it is hardly a valid argument in support of outlawing healthcare jobs.

Your position just does not seem very well thought out to me and contains multiple inconsistencies.

Happy_Killbot

@Spot We might be on the same page, but I think some chapters may have been skipped. There is still a fundamental misunderstanding here and I think I know what it is.

Please define, in your own words, what you think "marriage equality" means.

Spot

Dee said:

@Spot

*******Again, my argument was simply that gay marriage is not equal to heterosexual


Nor is hetrosexual marriage equal to gay marriage so what?

*****marriage since they cannot birth the same effects.

How does this make one marriage more worthy than another?

*******Don't say you are for marriage equality when the relationships are not equal

What makes a relationship equal?

The point is that people should stop saying that they are equal when that is obviously not the case. Homosexual behavior does nothing but harm society. Why do you think that homosexuals should have the rights of husbands and wives?

Spot

MayCaesar said:

@Spot

First, that is not true: homosexuals can produce children, they simply choose not to as they prefer male sex partners - similarly, there are heterosexuals that can produce children, but choose not to. Second, this discussion concerns gay marriage, and if you want to advocate against gay marriage based on lack of reproduction, then you should advocate against any marriage which does not lead to reproduction - and since it is never possible to say in advance whether reproduction will take place or not, marriage should only be allowed for those couples which have already produced children. Which is a pretty strange stance to take.

And third, you are also not correct in claiming that society cannot exist with all people being homosexual. Again, homosexual people can reproduce. In theory, there could be society in which everyone is homosexual, but men and women sometimes come together purely for reproduction purposes, even if the sex act between them repulses them.
Turn this around: suppose only homosexual sex could lead to reproduction. Now, you are heterosexual and want children really badly. Would swallowing your pride and laying down with a man for once be too much for you to do for the sake of making your dream come true? I do not know about you, but I would do it.

And even if a purely homosexual society could not exist - so what? Again, a purely doctor society cannot exist either, yet it is hardly a valid argument in support of outlawing healthcare jobs.

Your position just does not seem very well thought out to me and contains multiple inconsistencies.

Again, my original argument was specifically about gay marriages not being equal to heterosexual marriages. That is why I pointed out that both types of "marriage" cannot birth the same effects. Society will exist as long as males and females are reproducing with each other. But if homosexual behavior is all that is practiced, society will cease to exist. That was my original point. Since homosexuality is a choice, they can obviously mate with the opposite sex. I don't dispute that.

Spot

MayCaesar said:

@Spot

First, that is not true: homosexuals can produce children, they simply choose not to as they prefer male sex partners - similarly, there are heterosexuals that can produce children, but choose not to. Second, this discussion concerns gay marriage, and if you want to advocate against gay marriage based on lack of reproduction, then you should advocate against any marriage which does not lead to reproduction - and since it is never possible to say in advance whether reproduction will take place or not, marriage should only be allowed for those couples which have already produced children. Which is a pretty strange stance to take.

And third, you are also not correct in claiming that society cannot exist with all people being homosexual. Again, homosexual people can reproduce. In theory, there could be society in which everyone is homosexual, but men and women sometimes come together purely for reproduction purposes, even if the sex act between them repulses them.
Turn this around: suppose only homosexual sex could lead to reproduction. Now, you are heterosexual and want children really badly. Would swallowing your pride and laying down with a man for once be too much for you to do for the sake of making your dream come true? I do not know about you, but I would do it.

And even if a purely homosexual society could not exist - so what? Again, a purely doctor society cannot exist either, yet it is hardly a valid argument in support of outlawing healthcare jobs.

Your position just does not seem very well thought out to me and contains multiple inconsistencies.

I keep forgetting to respond to the last sentence for some reason. There would never be a society in which everybody became a doctor. Jobs eventually get filled and those other people with degrees would be unemployed and would be forced to work somewhere else. So, your example here is ridiculous. That said, homosexuals will never represent 100% of the population. Again, my original point was to show that the two types of "marriage" are not equal.

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot We might be on the same page, but I think some chapters may have been skipped. There is still a fundamental misunderstanding here and I think I know what it is.

Please define, in your own words, what you think "marriage equality" means.

I don't think there is a such thing as "marriage equality." There is marriage and then there are gay people that try to act like married couples.

Happy_Killbot

@Spot That's interesting. So you define marriage inequality as "That what does not exist"

So would you say that marriage inequality would be something like "Complete equivalence between married couples, or married couples that are the same in every way"?

Spot

Happy_Killbot said:

@Spot That's interesting. So you define marriage inequality as "That what does not exist"

So would you say that marriage inequality would be something like "Complete equivalence between married couples, or married couples that are the same in every way"?

I am not sure if I understand your question. When gay activists use the word "inequality," they are implying gay marriages should be considered equal even though this is not true biologically speaking. From my perspective, there is no marriage inequality since no relationship is equal to the one shared between a man and a woman.