<p>I didn’t have time to read the last few posts, sorry, but I wanted to know what JamesMadison’s thoughts are on marriage between a man and a postmenopausal woman, or between a man and a woman where one of them is infertile/sterile for whatever reason? Since these marriages cannot create life, are they lesser relationships not deserving of marriage?</p>
<p>I’m glad JM finally came out and said it, since it’s what I was suspecting he thought all along: gay people are not equal to straight people. </p>
<p>Despite that bigoted thought, I have to agree with him that the arguments for gay marriage based simply on equality and love do open doors for things like polygamy and incest (however not beastiality and pedophilia due to consent issues). This is why I support gay marriage on the premises that it should be illegal for the government to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Incest and polygamy are not orientations and therefore saying that marriage cannot discriminate on orientation (as opposed to equal rights for all) does not need to include them.</p>
It’s much more difficult to fix the problem of infertility than insufficient vaccination. Plus there are other issues that come up related to emotional stress and privacy. The example I gave still stands - it is a case of where every single possibility and exception is not looked at that is still present today.</p>
<p>I don’t see why we’re debating this anymore. It seems clear to me that no progress will be made due to some having different views of what marriage is than others. We’re really just going in circles. Regardless, years from now I know I’ll be able to look back and know that I was on the right side.</p>
<p>Even if a man is sterile, I believe the nature of the relationship between husband and wife is fundamentally the same. But, I see your point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course they are not equal. They are different. Not better, nor worse. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t really appreciate being called a bigot…
I don’t think I ever said that a gay relationship is worse. Simply different. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I also see your point. But, why would a relationship between my brother and I not be considered marriage? Of course, incest is questionable, but it seems like a victimless crime, and ultimately its my life. Denying our right to marry would also signify that our relationship is not worth as much.</p>
<p>The point with my earlier statement (about marrying your brother), is that one should not simply extend the definition of marriage to cover almost anything, purely on the basis of including everyone. If society allow gays to marry because they are consenting adults who love each other, one cannot simply refuse to expand the definition of marriage to cover almost every other possible union that meets this criteria.</p>
So marriage is between a man and a woman just because there relationship is different. Apparently procreation isn’t essential anymore, just that they’re a man and a woman. How is there relationship different from a man and a man then? and not that you’re saying procreation isn’t the reason that they get all these special benefits, what is the reason that they deserve these benefits?</p>
<p>Your argument hinges on the fact that the word “equal” can mean two separate things in two different contexts. Yawn.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A relationship between man and woman (in general, not an individual man and individual woman) can produce children. It doesn’t make sense to identify sterile men and woman and ban them from marriage, at least to me. Maybe it makes sense to you. </p>
<p>A gay marriage is not worse (I have to say this ten times in every post to avoid being called a bigot), but this general class of relationships can never produce children, which makes it different from marriage.</p>
<p>Some marriages between men and women can produce children. This means that all marriages between men and women are valid, regardless of whether an individual marriage is actually capable of producing children.</p>
<p>Some marriages between a human and a human can produce children. This means that all marriages between a human and a human are valid, regardless of whether an individual marriage is actually capable of producing children.</p>
<p>Why are these not equal? Just because society has created this class of relationship in the past and discriminated accordingly doesn’t mean we have any obligation to continue doing so in the future. It’s simply a matter of where you draw the lines. We as human beings are naturally inclined to group things in our world in order to make sense of them, but what groups we divide our world into is largely a function of socialization.</p>
<p>And if that’s how you draw the lines, by all means, support gay marriage.
However, I still maintain that because ALL human life originated from the union of man and woman, there is something unique about that relationship.</p>
<p>I just fail to see how your view is anything other than government sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation (which if you think is ok, I cannot argue, only disagree). You admit that the idea that marriage is about ability to conceive life is a bit of a fallacy given that infertile heterosexual couples are allowed to get married. Incest and polygamy/polyandry are not sexual orientations so saying you believe the government shouldn’t discriminate benefits based on sexual orientation doesn’t have to include them.</p>
<p>In regards to your most recent post, the origin of human life may have been from two things that were not true humans (i.e. not Homo sapiens). To use our speciation as the basis of what should define the social construct of a legal marriage could potentially (since we can’t rule out their contributions) include things like incest, polygamy, and beastiality under your definition of a legal marriage. I was under the impression that you were not in favor of such things, but correct me if I’m wrong or if I’m misunderstanding what you meant in your last post.</p>
<p>Different relationships being treated in different ways does not have to be something vile. I don’t view it as discrimination when I have to pay more than a child at a movie theater. I don’t feel inferior either. </p>
<p><a href=“which%20if%20you%20think%20is%20ok,%20I%20cannot%20argue,%20only%20disagree”>quote</a>. You admit that the idea that marriage is about ability to conceive life
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Would not phrase it that way. More along the lines of: the vast majority of human life originated from a relationship between a man and woman, and hence that relationship, while not superior, is indeed different from other forms of love. I don’t understand how anyone could disagree with that statement, even if they are pro gay marriage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That hinges on your definition of “orientation”. It seems what you are describing now is another form of “government sanctioned discrimination” against an “orientation” (read: sexual preference). </p>
<p>Again, I’m not saying incest is good. But just because it does not meet your arbitrary definition of an orientation does not mean you can discriminate against them either.</p>
<p>I guarantee if you had been hearing constantly from pro-incest activists on TV since you were 2, the idea of brothers marrying would be a totally acceptable and natural idea for you. You wouldn’t possibly be able to understand how anyone could oppose their right to marry.</p>
<p>In general, those who are opposed to gay marriage are utterly ostracized in the media. Look what happened to Ms. California in the pageant. She respectfully stated that she believes marriage is between a man and woman…and everyone tried to destroy her. This is neither free speech, nor tolerance. A truly shameful chapter in the land of the “free”. </p>
<p>Presenting certain views in the media is completely unheard of, and I understand why children these days are brought up to think that opposing gay marriage makes you some kind of monster. It upsets me how the media tells people what is acceptable and what’s not. Its done really in a very subtle, but persistent way…</p>
<p>Let the marriage issues go on this forum and go to whatever school makes you the most happy. You’ll know it when you go there. Any school that supports its students should support you in the face of harassment. If it doesn’t, it’s not a reflection on the LGBT population alone. Instead, it reflects the school’s lack of support. Period.
One more thing: creatures that speak human languages, are capable of entering contracts, share the same number of chromosomes, and have human DNA should get married. Period. The government is obliged to give human being their rights, which include marriage. There is no conflict or excuse here.</p>