Debate : 23548


Off-Topic / Debate / 23548	23547 \| 23549

Subject:	Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:22:37 GMT
Viewed:	326 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:

This all seems so blindingly obvious to me, I confess I find the whole gay marriage debate rather confusing. What is there to debate?

When you speak about the issue in terms of contract recognition, sure it seems obvious. But doesn’t this seem painfully obvious as well: men and women are not the same. The are not simply humans with irrelevant, interchangable reproduction appendages. There are distinctive, innate qualities to each sex. Merely because they have equal rights doesn’t mean they are the same. Isn’t that obvious? And isn’t it obvious that the ideal situation in which to raise a child involves 1 man and 1 women?

JOHN

Message has 3 Replies:

		Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee)
(...) Why? You keep saying that, but I don't to see why it's obvious. Can you spell out the real advantages of 1 man/1 woman? What, exactly, does it have over other unions that makes it the superior way of raising children? My experience with (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee)
(...) I don't think it's so obvious, honestly. If the fundamental criterion for legal marriage is the possibility of childbirth, then non-fertile couples must not be allowed to wed. Similarly, if a wife and husband try unsuccessfully to conceive, (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee)
(...) Yes but not necessarily relevant. (...) No. It's not at all obvious that is true. You'd have to prove it. But don't bother, because even if it were true, what of it? Marriage != Raising Children Ideal != Only Not Ideal != Should be Forbidden (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
(...) Yes, they do. As long as the forsake any governmental affiliation is strictly adhered to. That's tough to do today though. (...) But LUGNET, being completely privately funded, ought to (under the free association clause) be completely within (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

33 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search