Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

reason against gay marriage, men cannot have children

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
pstokely Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 05:50 PM
Original message
reason against gay marriage, men cannot have children
Edited on Wed Oct-22-03 06:17 PM by pstokely
I've heard stuff like "marriage is for procreation, gays cannot have children but there are medical procedures for infertile couples"

would these people be for Gay marriage if there were medical procedures for men to have children? why is it legal for seniors to marry if they are too old to have kids? don't medical procedures go against the will of God like BC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. Answer to your topic header...
Ummm...NONE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mlawson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. Would WHO be for gay marriage?
I do not understand your question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. I don't care what term people use
I just want the same legal rights as straight people have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nostamj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. really!
only str8 people have special rights based on sexuality.

i get SO sick of this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I don't agree.
Unless they can come up with a LEGITIMATE, and logical reason as to why the oppose gay marriage, which they haven't, then I see no reason why we should be, once again, the ones to compromise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laughing Mirror Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
19. thank you thank you thank you
your simple statement is exactly the words i always use

and as basic as the right to equal rights is, people just can't seem to grasp it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
20. You want a contract.
Marriage is also a contract supposedly. There is no reason why you shouldn't have that right. And who says gays can't have families? Sure you can adopt, the obvious one, but there is also a chance a gay man could have a genetic child with a surrogate mother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. perverted, distorted, mis-represented, fanatical religious views....
those are the ONLY grounds for reasons against gay marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
7. heh
My dad (a good liberal with some pretty hardcore generational blinders where gays are concerned) threw the "gays can't have children" thing out a few years back. I pointed out that I likely couldn't (can't, as it turned out later) father children because of past cancer treatment, and did that mean that I shouldn't have gotten married? He grumbled. :D

There is no reason whatsoever to fail to recognize gay unions no matter the name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrWeird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
8. Bigotry.
The exact same reason interracial marraiges were against the law in many places forty years ago.

Here's to progress. Past and future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Yeah. That.
It seems counter to societal desires that dictate monogomy and fidelity to one partner.

Isn't that what love is about, forgoing all others in a monogomous union?

Nope, doesn't make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
10. There are none
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
11. umm, i'm thinking
still thinking

still thinking

i got nothin... anybody else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elperromagico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
12. The argument that irritates me
Edited on Wed Oct-22-03 06:23 PM by elperromagico
is "Gay marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage."

What sanctity?!? With a divorce rate of 40%, I would say the sanctity of marriage was destroyed a long time ago (if it ever existed at all).

Conservatives must be insecure or something. They need the Ten Commandments in their courthouse to keep them religious, they need an abortion ban to help them respect life, they need a gay marriage ban to help keep their marriages sacred, and they need the Supreme Court to decide elections they claim to have won. Can't they do anything without government assistance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mlawson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. They are all about symbols.
REAL issues and conditions rarely concern them. But if their symbols can be planted where the rest if us have to notice and respect them, then they think they have won, and have actually accomplished something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elperromagico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Agreed
GOP: The Party of Jingoism and Meaningless Symbols
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. and it makes for one hell of a devisive campaign issue!
crazy repubes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
15. What about heterosexual married couples who can't or won't have children
Are their marriages invalid...because they can't or won't procreate?

For instance, Pat and Shelly Buchanan. They don't have children.

Is their marriage invalid?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elperromagico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. You're trying to use logic here
Nice try. Logic doesn't work on Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. That's true. (Warning...large image links)
So I think the people at http://www.whitehouse.org have the answer.

"Beloved American patriot Jerry Falwell recently announced that he will devote the remainder of his Godly life to advocating a Constitutional amendment banning marriage between people of the same gender. The United States Department of Faith supports Mr. Falwell's desire to impose Biblical edicts on Americans of all faiths by converting the Constitution from a document that restricts the power of government into one that limits the so-called freedoms of individuals. Nevertheless, the Department of Faith also recognizes that the Bible is replete with verses restricting marriage in many ways, not merely as relates to Mr. Falwell's infatuation with men licking each other. As such, the USDOF has delivered to the President and each member of the U.S. Congress the following proposal to incorporate Biblical restrictions on marriage into our Christian nation's otherwise embarrassingly flawed and secular Constitution:"


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onebigbadwulf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
21. Eternal hypocrisy
It's another fundamentalist christian hypocrisy.

Let me point out the christian hypocrisy for all of you who love to debate...

1. God said he would provide.

Fundamentalists argue that the earth has enough food and water production to provide everyone with enough food and water to live. It's up to us, however, to distribute it to everyone.

"We must distribute what God has provided." -Christians



2. Gay marriage is wrong because same-sex couples can't have kids.

Just like food and water, the earth has enough abandoned, homeless, and orphaned children to provide all same sex couples with a family.
BUT.....

"We MUST NOT distribute what God has provided!" -Christians


See how they interpret "God providing" when they want? And "god saying it's wrong" when it doesn't suit them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
22. "I want to bear him strong sons..."
That's the line my partner and I use with each other whenever we see a particularly attractive guy and wish to express our admiration....

(Sigh) In the figurative sense only....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 14th 2024, 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC