Well, in some countries it never went out of fashion. :D

Besides, what have gay marriage to do with polygamy? </font>[/QUOTE]Well we're throwing open the definition of marriage. Why can't two men, or two women, or a man and women marry a third or fourth party? Why should marriage be preclusive? Two people commiting for life publicly right? What does it matter if they're committed to another? I mean we're opening up the definition now right? Why stop here?

In any case, you can't stop language. We'll just use words that describe procreating couples, as distinct from non-procreating couples.

At the end of the day, a healthy man and woman have to go to extra-ordinary lengths to avoid having children.

Same sex couples on the other hand, have to go to extra-ordinary lengths to HAVE children.

Kind of says it all really.

Equality is a myth, but blame it on nature.

Well, in some countries it never went out of fashion. :D

Besides, what have gay marriage to do with polygamy? </font>[/QUOTE]The same thing is has to do with man on dog action according to the Right.

In the real world, absolutely nothing [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Oh really?

Scenario. Man married lesbian woman, who wants to marry her lesbian lover but remain married to her husband.

Same sex marriage is allowed, so why can't she express commitment to one person per gender?

The pandoras box is open Rokken. It's open season. Bring back polygamy!

Yorick, I don't think ability to procreate is a reasonable factor to make any decision on. Many men and women in hetero or homo relationships are not able to procreate, and this is not a basis for marriage rights in any state.

On polygamy I note I've posted regarding that argument before and shan't do it a third/fourth time. Suffice to say that defining a marriage or union as a "coupling" of two people is distinct and separate from defining what genders may "couple." Also, suffice to say the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue of polygamny, and it is "right out."

You mention a "scenario." Let me give you a scenario that you can find examples of throughout the country (and I know of one in particular in VT). Man and woman marry. Man has sex change to woman, but state/fed will not allow a change of gender on state/social security rolls. So now we have two seemingly women married, but one is considered to legally be a male. These two people can legally adopt a child jointly (being, legally, man and woman, despite REALITY) while a regular lesbian couple (comprised of two natural women) cannot do so. Is there a disconnect there? I think so.

I think it certainly is. Given perfect health certain couples can procreate and others can't. This should be the basis on whether a couple can have children or not. A 90 year old heterosexual couple, even in perfect health cannot reproduce. They should be deemed unable and unfit to raise a child because they will die, leaving the child parentless.

A man and a man cannot produce a child under any circumstances. Biologically impossible no matter how perfect their bodily functions are.

Basically I am looking at a society creating some sort of "break", some sort of encouragement for couples that create children, to create full siblinged families, minisocieties that instill love and community in the context of blood relational unity.

We could call it marriage, but seeing as politics mean that word has been watered down and now includes other elements, I shall look for new language and new ways of encouraging family building, as I have found it leads to greater mental health in those involved in the said functioning "mini society".

Let's call it a blood family. Procreationally united couple. The words are irrelevent. The reality that every same sex couple has to face - however painfully it may be - is that they are NOT on the same biological footing as procreationing couples. No matter how much you change the law, how much you use wording, how much reality you seek to avoid, it just delays acceptance of the inevitable.

Unlike a procreating couple, the same sex couple will never, no matter how healthy, look into the eyes of a human that contains a bit of them, and a bit of their partner, and was brought into existence through performing the ultimate intimate expression of their love.

Avoiding this painful reality only leads to denial and possible problems with mental health. As usually happens when we avoid reality and seek to avoid the painful truth of a situation.

Therein is the frightful rub. Should we test couples to see if they are able to procreate and grant/deny marriage licenses on that basis? I think not. However, if a male/female couple that is incapable (and knowingly incapable) of having children are allowed to marry (as they are) any argument (like yours) regarding procreation ability as a qualifier for marriage should be seen as discriminiatory and/or misguided. Simple as that.

Therein is the frightful rub. Should we test couples to see if they are able to procreate and grant/deny marriage licenses on that basis? I think not. However, if a male/female couple that is incapable (and knowingly incapable) of having children are allowed to marry (as they are) any argument (like yours) regarding procreation ability as a qualifier for marriage should be seen as discriminiatory and/or misguided. Simple as that. </font>[/QUOTE]Timber you're missing the point. It's not the ability to procreate, nor the couples state of health, but the ability to procreate given perfect health.

A 30 year old woman, all things in order, is perfectly able to carry children. A post menopausal woman cannot. Nature puts a time limit on procreation for a reason. Plenty of offspring would die with parents too old. Additionally, the woman herself could die.

However, given a womb problem, the 30 year old woman could still mother a child abandoned by another mother.

So, if either woman wanted to adopt, the ability - given perfect health - is a deciding factor.

If this is true for an individual, why not for two individuals? The issue is not whether the couple ARE in perfect health, but whether they could if they WERE in perfect health.

I don't see why this line of reasoning is so hard to see.

Yorick, what I'm getting at here is the legal benefits of marriage, not the procreation part. If you forbid gay marriage you are denying people those benefits based solely on their sexual orientation. Does that really fit into our democratic and presumably enlightened society?

Personally, I don't give a horses arse of they call it marriage or not. I wont weep if they have to settle with calling it 'Registered Partnership', 'Civil Union' or whatever as long as they get the legal benefits of marriage.

Hmmm... who says that the purpose of marriage is to procreate anyway?
Are we to deny heterosexual couples the right to marriage if they refuse to undertake to raise children, preferring instead to own a couple of dogs and/or go on expensive foreign vacations?

I see your reasoning Yorick, but to but it simply you are wrong [img]smile.gif[/img]

Besides there are already far too many people in the world, the last thing we need to do is encourge people to have more.

Yorick, you missed the point completely. You make the argument "marriage" should be based on ability to procreate. I point out many straight couples CAN'T do that and CAN still marry. You then create this hypothetical "perfect health" situation that we're supposed to use as a "test."

I just find that useless in any practical application. Other than to discriminate against a class of people.

If a marriage license should be granted based on the ability to procreate, then make it that way -- i.e. sterile people can't marry. If it's not based on ability to procreate, then drop it.

You have entered an alternate universe where you want to make it "based on the ability to procreate, if each member of the couple were in perfect health and had properly functioning reproductive systems." This new "test" is what you fell into because your original "test" (ability to procreate) got shot full of holes at some point. Now, it's obvious your "perfect health" caveat is simply a post hoc attempt to revive a failed argument.

Hell, here's my argument: if one of the men in a gay relationship had a vagina and a womb, they COULD procreate, so we should let them marry. It's not the same as your "hypothetical world test" but it's no more silly. Come back from the Twilight Zone, mkay?

[ 02-06-2004, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]