North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[Fragony]

If the relevant issue in the marriage debate is the ability to procreate and not religious tradition, shouldn't the fact that gay couples can now have children through various means be reason enough to extend the institution to such couples? If you do not want to micromanage fertility, then ability alone must be the deciding factor.

Gay couples shouldn't have these various means to have children, sorry Panzer the world is not ready for that yet. Even if you would do a fine job.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Gay couples shouldn't have these various means to have children, sorry Panzer the world is not ready for that yet. Even if you would do a fine job.

The world only becomes ready by doing things it isn't quite ready for yet (taking your premise as true). There's always a trial by fire. Sometimes conservatives are too pessimistic.

[Fragony]

The world only becomes ready by doing things it isn't quite ready for yet (taking your premise as true). There's always a trial by fire. Sometimes conservatives are too pessimistic.

I am absolutely not that conservative, but a lot of people still are. People will want to make a point out of it, both sides

[a completely inoffensive name]

Welp, Obama just came out in favor of Same-Sex marriage.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...545729926.html

[Vladimir]

'bout time.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Welp, Obama just came out in favor of Same-Sex marriage.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...545729926.html

He's always supported it, yeah? Who was that a secret to?

[a completely inoffensive name]

He's always supported it, yeah? Who was that a secret to?

The millions of evangelical blacks who turn out in high numbers to prevent same sex marriage.

[Lemur]

Welp, Obama just came out in favor of Same-Sex marriage.

Yup, and apparently the timing was not planned. Maybe it's good to have a VP who says things when he isn't supposed to?

The declaration was not supposed to come this week. Instead, the White House had planned to dramatically unveil the shift shortly before the Democratic convention. But Obama had been agitated by Vice President Joe Biden’s own endorsement of gay marriage on Sunday, which knocked the White House off what was supposed to be its message this week—student loans and economic issues.

The president expressed his frustration to West Wing officials—some of whom questioned whether Biden had wandered off script or was trying to foster a change in policy—but Obama didn’t take up the issue with his No. 2. Asked about Biden's role in prodding him, Obama acknowledged to ABC "that I would have preferred to do it in my own time, on my own terms."

[Strike For The South]

Gay couples shouldn't have these various means to have children, sorry Panzer the world is not ready for that yet. Even if you would do a fine job.

ಠ_ಠ

[HoreTore]

Gay couples shouldn't have these various means to have children, sorry Panzer the world is not ready for that yet. Even if you would do a fine job.

Unless you propose taking children away from their parents and putting them in foster care, there is nothing you can do to prevent gays from having children. Sperm donations and such just makes life easier, it does not decide whether or not a gay couple has children.

[Whacker]

Unless you propose taking children away from their parents and putting them in foster care, there is nothing you can do to prevent gays from having children. Sperm donations and such just makes life easier, it does not decide whether or not a gay couple has children.

I'm pretty sure Frags gets that. The point is, they cannot "naturally" conceive a child that is a direct product of their combined DNA.

[HoreTore]

I'm pretty sure Frags gets that. The point is, they cannot "naturally" conceive a child that is a direct product of their combined DNA.

I'm pretty sure he gets it too.

The point is, they already have gotten tons of children "naturally". Whether or not society is able to accept gay children or not is no longer relevant. The children are herem and they have the parents they have. If society is unable to treat them properlyas the individuals they are, society needs to change. Fast.

@PVC: one of the first pro-gay arguments in this thread(mine), had nothing to do with "love", it was about personal freedom and that the state or society has no business poking in other peoples priate lives.

Also, the paragraph after the sentence about pro-gay arguments reveals a rather skewed view on what relationships are about, and what people in general think about the relations between people. To put it mildly, you voice the opinion of an extremely small minority, one I would have to assume only consists of yourself.

When this is contrasted with your calls for tradition, nature, etc, it gets weird. I can understand arguments like the ones you have made coming from someone in the majority, but not from a sexual minority, which you are.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm pretty sure he gets it too.

The point is, they already have gotten tons of children "naturally". Whether or not society is able to accept gay children or not is no longer relevant. The children are herem and they have the parents they have. If society is unable to treat them properlyas the individuals they are, society needs to change. Fast.

What about their actual parents, though?

This is an issue - there was even a Hollywood film about it already.

[Strike For The South]

Artifical insemination is exactly the same as having sex with a man when he's gagged and covered in a sheet with a hole for his little man.

Now it's a party

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"The kids are all right"? Yeah that was surprisingly negative about lesbian parenting, I think it was an independent movie based on people the writer knew though. And could easily be seen as negative about hippie parents. I do think there are some issues with the surrogate type stuff, as people seem to naturally care about genetic links and "real parents" and stuff like that.

So basically like I was saying. The clear and simple solution (legally) is to have gay marriage. But we shouldn't be fooled into thinking the cultural issues are so simple and clear cut, or that being on the right side of the legal question makes our ideas about the cultural stuff right to.

Simple, with adopted children the family has broken down - the point of marriage is to keep the biologically family together because children generally do best with their biological parents - it's also about linking a father and his children without the need for expensive forensice investigation. However, once the father has sodded off that's already failed, hasn't it? In that case, assuming the mother had the werewithal to nail him down to begin with the marriage is the permenant hook she has in him, because even if they get divorced she's entitled to support.

So there's no particular reason for the adoptive parents to marry; granted there's no reason they shouldn't be married but in the vast majority of cases where the couple are infertile they only find out after trying to have natural children.

I think if parents adopt a kid, and the father sodds off, the mother is still entitled to support. Adoption is a commitment to treat the kids like they are biologically your own, and society should treat it as such.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"The kids are all right"? Yeah that was surprisingly negative about lesbian parenting, I think it was an independent movie based on people the writer knew though. And could easily be seen as negative about hippie parents. I do think there are some issues with the surrogate type stuff, as people seem to naturally care about genetic links and "real parents" and stuff like that.

I haven't seen it - but the dact it got made is a point in itself. If I were a child with two dads/moms I'd want to know where the other part of me came from, especially as a boy with two moms you'd want to know stuff, like am I going to got bald?

So basically like I was saying. The clear and simple solution (legally) is to have gay marriage. But we shouldn't be fooled into thinking the cultural issues are so simple and clear cut, or that being on the right side of the legal question makes our ideas about the cultural stuff right to.

If you want clear and simple I propse the following:

1. Abolish legal marriage.

2. Allow consenting adults to contract whatever "marriage like" arrangements with whatever gender/number of consenting adults they wish.

3. Abbolish annulment, you contract one of these agreements you either stay together or get a full divorce because defining what is an isn't a conjugal act is a legal nightmare. I had this argument with a Gay man earlier in the wekk, he proposed a list of legally consumating sex-acts, I can't see that working.

As far as I am personally concerned the only logical courses of action are to keep marriage between one man and one woman, or to completely liberalise it.

If we can't proscribe the geneder of the person you marry we can't proscribe anything else about your legal arrangements and I call foul on anyone who supports Gay marriage, dissagrees with this point, then calls me a bigot.