Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I dissagree, even when homosexuality was not frowned upon (say, Ancient Greece) marriage was ever reserved for man and woman, so that the rearing of children would have a legal basis and protection. Given that we acknowledge even today that (all things being equal) having both your naturlparents, together, is best the basic rational appears still to be valid.

Homosexual couples need to involve a third person (and a doctor) to create children, such children have three "parents". This has reached a point now where two Lesbians in the UK are now allowed to omit the biological father from the Birth Certificate and put down both their own names. If you want to talk about a lack logic, there is an abundence in the increasingly complex and sometimes cruel and absurd arrangementsd used to accomodate the desire of modern homosexual couples to ape heterosexual ones.

To summarise, marriage is about the children and their biological parents, ergo it cannot be extended to same-sex couples or any other irregular relationships. Even in polygamy there are multiple marriage contracts, not a group arrangement.

[PanzerJaeger]

To summarise, marriage is about the children and their biological parents, ergo it cannot be extended to same-sex couples or any other irregular relationships. Even in polygamy there are multiple marriage contracts, not a group arrangement.

Should barren heterosexual couples be allowed to marry?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Should barren heterosexual couples be allowed to marry?

Yes, because many people who are declared "barren" subsequently concieve. Including the wife of our much-missed Tribesman.

Also, there is a difference between a medical disability and a sexual preference; some homosexuals choose to marry in order to have children in a regularised environment. There is a Roman Catholic who did just that, he writes for the Daily Telegraph I believe.

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes, because many people who are declared "barren" subsequently concieve. Including the wife of our much-missed Tribesman.

Also, there is a difference between a medical disability and a sexual preference; some homosexuals choose to marry in order to have children in a regularised environment. There is a Roman Catholic who did just that, he writes for the Daily Telegraph I believe.

And what about couples who choose not to have children? Should they be allowed to marry?

Edit: Or women who have had hysterectomies? No chance for kids there.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And what about couples who choose not to have children? Should they be allowed to marry?

They might choose differently later, and allowing them to marry seems to encourage that.

Edit: Or women who have had hysterectomies? No chance for kids there.

Physical disability might be a mitigation, but I'm inclined to say "no" actually.

Of course, none of this prevents you from getting a Civil Partnership.

[PanzerJaeger]

Physical disability might be a mitigation, but I'm inclined to say "no" actually.

So the logical hopscotch that has to be played in order to justify keeping gays from marrying leads us to an outcome where women who have had hysterectomies are disallowed from marriage?

It all seems a bit convoluted to me and I'm having a hard time seeing how any of it helps children (as opposed to gay adoption which has been a Godsend, pardon the pun, for children abandoned by their straight parents), but I respect your commitment.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So the logical hopscotch that has to be played in order to justify keeping gays from marrying leads us to an outcome where women who have had hysterectomies are disallowed from marriage?

It all seems a bit convoluted to me and I'm having a hard time seeing how any of it helps children, but I respect your commitment.

I have to say that the cultural and logical hopscotch that ries to make homosexual relationships exactly the same as heterosexual ones is worse.

It's simple: Marriage is about creating a legal bond between the parents of a child (preferably before they are born), that is why marriage was for so long considered dissoluable, because the couple are blood-bound by their children.

What the "gay-marriage" movement wants to do is fundamentally redefine an institutions whose basic purpose and composition has been the same for all of recorded history.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So the logical hopscotch that has to be played in order to justify keeping gays from marrying leads us to an outcome where women who have had hysterectomies are disallowed from marriage?

Great phrasing

Considering government recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is a flawed premise.

If it was called civil unions in the law, I don't think there would be a movement to make it legally called gay marriage. The issue is that it shouldn't be called one thing for straight people and another thing for gay people.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes, because many people who are declared "barren" subsequently concieve. Including the wife of our much-missed Tribesman.

I think I know where he is hiding out. Have you seen the Hotel Inspector show on Channel 5 recently?

My youtube searches haven't provided anything, but there was one old eccentric hotel owner who kept saying "bollox" like Gordon Ramsay with his f-word...

[Hosakawa Tito]

So you're saying that procreation is a necessary goal of marriage and the traditional notions of marriage justify discrimination against same-sex marriages?

I don't agree.

Gender roles in opposite-sex marriages have changed dramatically over the last few decades. All marriages are now unions of equals. Are you saying that equality should be restricted to straight couples only?

The 14th Admendment guarantees rights to equal protection and due process of law. Prop 8 violates those rights.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The 14th Admendment guarantees rights to equal protection and due process of law. Prop 8 violates those rights.

State-recognised marriage violates those rights.

Once again, what of the asexuals?