Debate : 23553


Off-Topic / Debate / 23553	23552 \| 23554

Subject:	Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:18:17 GMT
Viewed:	352 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:

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?

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, must their marriage be dissolved?

What is obvious is the fact that the possibility of childbirth is not the fundamental criterion of marriage. Equally obvious is the fact that the differences between men and women are not fundamental criteria, either.

Which, in your view, would be more destructive to the development and well-being of a child: a loving, stable marriage between two men in which the child is raised by both parents, or a bitter, abusive marriage between a man and a woman, in which one or both parents fail to provide emotional stability for the child?

If you are indeed thinking primarily of the child’s well being, and if you’re willing to have the Constitution altered to protect children’s well-being, wouldn’t it follow that dysfunctional heterosexual marriage must be banned along with homosexual marriage?

If not, why not?

Dave!

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee)
(...) Don't ask, don't tell;-) But seriously, privacy issues put that tack in irons. (...) If you want to argue that men and women are basically the same, bring it on;-D (...) Specious. You are comparing apples and oranges. Of course I'd never (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:

		Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee)
(...) 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 (...) (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