Reply to In which ancient societies (other than Greece) was homosexuality accepted?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "In which ancient societies (other than Greece) was homosexuality accepted?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]13:05 -- [b]So based on your analysis, marriage should be available only to those who intend to raise children together[/b]?[/quote]

No, simply stating that in EVERY society, even those that have had relatively accepting attitudes towards homosexuality,  marriage has always been a union between people who have or can have children together.  That is why the state has an interest in it.  This is the reason that no society (that I can think of) has allowed marriage between siblings and parent/child.  Marriage has always been an institution reserved for those who theoretically can have children together.  Every restriction against it has been towards those who can't (same sex) or shouldn't (close relatives) have children together.  Changing this aspect changes the nature of what marriage has always been about.[/quote]

Just to be clear, you're limiting marriage to those who have (or plan to have) children[i] together[/i] [b]naturally[/b].

* Not those who adopt.
* Not those who require any assistance to conceive (sperm donation, IVF, surrogacy, etc.).
* Not those who bring a child into the relationship. (Because that would not be a child the married couple produced "together.")

If you believe marriage should be available to any of the above, but only if the partners are opposite sex, then we're back to simple discrimination. Because many, many gay couples adopt, use alternative methods of conception and have children from prior relationships.

If you believe marriage offers benefits to the child, then you have zero reason to oppose gay marriage -- at least for gay couples who have or plan to have children.
[/quote]

All of the above instances are examples of couples who are RAISING children together not HAVING children together.  I could choose to adopt and raise a child with my mother.  We would both be acting in the social role of parents, but it would not be our child together.  [/quote]

So couples who need a doctor's help to conceive are not having a child together? Really?

As for your example, presumably, you and your mother would also not be sharing a bed. But I'm getting that you don't feel the relationship between the parents is important to the marraige issue at all. It's all about the babies.

So, again, to clarify, you believe that only couples who can produce child together, naturally, should be able to marry. Right?[/quote]

To answer your first question.  No,  couples who use assistance in conceiving (and by that I assume you're referring to artificial insemination) are not having a child together.  They are raising a child together.  The spouse who is the genetic parent and the gamete donor had the child together.

In regards to your other questions.  No I do not believe that every couple who enters a marriage has to have the intention of having a child at all, whether naturally or through other means.  There is a big difference in an individual marriage, and what the purpose of marriage serves on a societal level.  I am not totally opposed to same sex marriage, but I do have misgivings.  The reason for marriage has never been simply about the official recognition of a couple's affection for each other.  It has always about giving social & legal recognition to those unions that children can result from.  The legalization of same sex marriage represents a major severance from what marriage throughout history has been about.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics