Why A Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage

To argue that opposition to same-sex marriage is immoral is to argue that every moral thinker, and every religion and social movement in the history of mankind prior to the last 20 years in America and Europe was immoral.

Congratulations, you just nullified thousands of marriages

You could not possibly be more wrong if you were actually trying to be wrong. And you are completely and utterly wrong.

A man is a man. A woman is a woman.

A man or woman who by injury, illness, age, or defect is sterile is still a man or a woman.

The sexual union of a man and a woman, considered in the abstract, is capable of producing children. It is therefore, in the abstract, the substance of which marriage is made.

Physical gratification conducted between two men, or between two women, or between a human and an animal, cannot EVER by its very nature produce children. Relationships based on such actions, therefore, are not the substance of which marriage is made.

Your argument confuses substance (man, woman) and accident (sterility due to age, injury, illness, or defect). Such confusion is quite common in this miseducated age.

“Congratulations, you just nullified thousands of marriages between men and women where one or both partners are sterile.”

I assume you’re being facetious, but what a profoundly ignorant statement. Firstly, the other poster referred to a relationship which we know cannot produce children. Maybe certain heterosexual couples can’t produce children either, but unless they knew and told us we wouldn’t know. We’re not willing as a society—either through modesty, concern for privacy, or not thinking it necessary—to find out before we let then get married. Although, if one side kept sterility from the other it is grounds for annulment.

Law have varying levels of specificity, however no e of them are designed for each specific case. It is hardly necessary that all married couples produce offspring for marriage to be about children. It is generally about the next generation, and overlooks particular deviant cases.

This is true of all manner of laws. For instance, many 17 year olds, or even 13 year olds, are maturer than 18 year olds. Many 14 year olds are probably better drivers than 16 year olds. Does that mean age of majority laws and driving age laws aren’t really about maturity or driving ability? Of course not. The laws chooses not willy-nilly, but somewhat arbitrarily. There’s no way not to choose arbitrarily, for there is no universal age of sufficient maturity to be an adult, though there are biological norms giving a rough estimate of when your brain reaches full development. Laws can be somewhat arbitrary, in that they are for the general case, not every specific instance. Infertile couples can be married in the same sense that immature 18 year olds can be adults.

If marriage isn’t about kids but rather about sex and lifelong companionship,first if all it’s some huge coincidence that all through human history only the sort of couples who can biologically reproduce have been married. More importantly, I don’t see compelling state interest in regulating it. Why do childless couples need special legal status or to be bound with one another? Let them come and go, I say. Then the solution would be to have no marriage, not to let gays in on it. As it is most of us see a compelling state interest in ensuring a stable early life for the next generation, and therefore support special status for heterosexual couples who so opt.

As it is most of us see a compelling state interest in ensuring a stable early life for the next generation, and therefore support special status for heterosexual couples who so opt.

Cool, then by your logic here:

It is entirely reasonable to allow same-sex couples to marry since they are perfectly capable of providing a stable, loving home to children that need one.

Hmmm ... maybe you should learn how to read for comprehension since I absolutely DID NOT say that the ONLY valid reason for marriage was to have children.

I did say:

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron.
Anyone who even thinks it's possible is a moron.
Buggery doesn't lead to pregnancy.

I then said:

Marriage exists and was established by God for the purpose of procreating and properly raising children in a stable environment with a father and a mother. The connection between children and pregnancy should be obvious ... Contrary to the falsehoods promulgated by leftists and perverts, the State did not invent marriage.
A relationship which by nature cannot produce children, as between two men, or two women, or between a human and an animal, cannot be a marriage.

Finally, I said:

You could not possibly be more wrong if you were actually trying to be wrong. And you are completely and utterly wrong.
A man is a man. A woman is a woman.
A man or woman who by injury, illness, age, or defect is sterile is still a man or a woman.
The sexual union of a man and a woman, considered in the abstract, is capable of producing children. It is therefore, in the abstract, the substance of which marriage is made.
Physical gratification conducted between two men, or between two women, or between a human and an animal, cannot EVER by its very nature produce children. Relationships based on such actions, therefore, are not the substance of which marriage is made.
Your argument confuses substance (man, woman) and accident (sterility due to age, injury, illness, or defect). Such confusion is quite common in this miseducated age.

The only way I see to reach your interpretation of my comments is to add the word "only" to my comment that "Marriage exists and was established by God for the purpose of ..." At no point did I say that He established marriage solely for that purpose.

In any case, I hope you are in agreement that "homosexual marriage" is a pure impossibility.

same-sex couples to marry since they are perfectly capable of providing a stable, loving home to children that need one.

Again, and at the risk of belaboring the point:

Two women, or two men, or a human and an animal, CANNOT produce a child. Buggery does not lead to pregnancy.

Two men, or two women, or a human and an animal, CANNOT provide a child with a stable family containing a father and a mother.

A homosexual relationship, or a beastial relationship, CANNOT by its nature, be the substance of which marriage is made.

“It is entirely reasonable to allow same sex couples to marry since they are perfectly capable of providing a stable, loving home to children that need one”

Gay couples can raise a child, but heterosexual couples will have kids in and out of wedlock. Where do you think most if the kids gays adopt come from. There is a compelling state interest in binding reproducers on wedlock because it addresses the problem of illegitimacy. There is no illegitimacy springing from gay coupling, and therefore no problem to address.

Adoption authorities can set their own standards, and I’m sure they screen for fidelity and farsightedness in gay couples. To propose marriage as a solution to doubt over whether the gay couples who have cleared all other hurdles will stay together at least until the child is 18 seems unreasonable to me. That’s like offering as solution to the chance a 14 year old is as good a driver or better than any 16 year old annual tests from 14 to 16, or maybe even earlier, just in case any good drivers are left cold by the law.

It’s not compelling, is the point. It’d be like killing a gnat with a cannon. Again, gays might be able to raise a kid, but heterosexuals will have children. The state’s interest is in those people, the ones responsible, being responsible. Many, many, many less gays will ever adopt or ever would adopt than boys and girls who make babies.

Bearing and raising children is not the only valid reason to get married. Whatever is the state’s sufficient reason for establishing the institution, once it exists qualifying couples can enter into bondage for any old reason. Whether or not their particular reason’s justify the state’s interests hardly matters. Unless childlessness overtakes a majority of marriages, or grows to cover some sufficient number to sever the connection between child rearing and marriage.

Even then we might want to keep it, since whatever most marrieds do boys and girls will still be popping out kiddies, and we’ll still want to encourage them to bind themselves together.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.