If you are opposed to same-sex marriage, are you willing to push for this law?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NowHereThis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NowHereThis

Guest
“No heterosexuals who are unable to procreate may marry. All heterosexuals who do marry must sign a contract promising to procreate. If any married heterosexual couple is subsequently found to be unable to procreate, their marriage is summarily dissolved. If any married heterosexual couple has not procreated by the time of the woman’s menopause, they are in breach of their marital contract as a matter of law, and their marriage is dissolved, with additional penalties for breach of contract.”

That law would demonstrate your commitment to the proposition that marriage is most fundamentally about intercourse-derived children. Otherwise, how can you avoid the perception that your position is not a principled one, because it isn’t applicable to gay and straight alike?
 
NowHereThis said:
“No heterosexuals who are unable to procreate may marry. All heterosexuals who do marry must sign a contract promising to procreate. If any married heterosexual couple is subsequently found to be unable to procreate, their marriage is summarily dissolved. If any married heterosexual couple has not procreated by the time of the woman’s menopause, they are in breach of their marital contract as a matter of law, and their marriage is dissolved, with additional penalties for breach of contract.”

That law would demonstrate your commitment to the proposition that marriage is most fundamentally about intercourse-derived children. Otherwise, how can you avoid the perception that your position is not a principled one, because it isn’t applicable to gay and straight alike?
Click to expand...
Hm, would that also mean that elderly couples who cannot procreate should be unable to marry too?
 
dronald said:
Hm, would that also mean that elderly couples who cannot procreate should be unable to marry too?
Click to expand...
Yes, it would. They cannot perform what “pro-marriage” advocates argue is the most fundamental function of marriage.
 
No, what about the poor couple that finds out that through no fault of their own one of them is infertile?
 
IneedGod said:
No, what about the poor couple that finds out that through no fault of their own one of them is infertile?
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t that be allowing your personal feelings to take precedence over preserving the institution of marriage and its most fundamental function?
 
NowHereThis said:
“No heterosexuals who are unable to procreate may marry. All heterosexuals who do marry must sign a contract promising to procreate. If any married heterosexual couple is subsequently found to be unable to procreate, their marriage is summarily dissolved. If any married heterosexual couple has not procreated by the time of the woman’s menopause, they are in breach of their marital contract as a matter of law, and their marriage is dissolved, with additional penalties for breach of contract.”

That law would demonstrate your commitment to the proposition that marriage is most fundamentally about intercourse-derived children. Otherwise, how can you avoid the perception that your position is not a principled one, because it isn’t applicable to gay and straight alike?
Click to expand...
sounds good to me.
 
A couple often get married hoping to have lots of children only to discover AFTER marriage the infertility!
 
IneedGod said:
A couple often get married hoping to have lots of children only to discover AFTER marriage the infertility!
Click to expand...
Allow them to stay in, and you have gay people arguing that marriage isn’t really about intercourse-derived procreation after all, and how can you then justify keeping gays out without looking unprincipled?

If marriage is really and truly about procreation, then only those who procreate through intercourse can have it. The price of allowing non-procreative heterosexuals to marry is creating the logical grounds for allowing gays to marry. Either let gays in, or throw non-procreative straight people out.
 
NowHereThis said:
“No heterosexuals who are unable to procreate may marry. All heterosexuals who do marry must sign a contract promising to procreate. If any married heterosexual couple is subsequently found to be unable to procreate, their marriage is summarily dissolved. If any married heterosexual couple has not procreated by the time of the woman’s menopause, they are in breach of their marital contract as a matter of law, and their marriage is dissolved, with additional penalties for breach of contract.”

That law would demonstrate your commitment to the proposition that marriage is most fundamentally about intercourse-derived children. Otherwise, how can you avoid the perception that your position is not a principled one, because it isn’t applicable to gay and straight alike?
Click to expand...
that law would last exactly 0 minutes after enacted, its unconstitutional on so many grounds and childishly so. if you’re going to troll, think it through first.
 
Fairwinds said:
that law would last exactly 0 minutes after enacted, its unconstitutional on so many grounds and childishly so. if you’re going to troll, think it through first.
Click to expand...
It could be a constitutional amendment, just like the Federal Marriage Amendment.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

This is a serious point, and calling me a troll doesn’t change that. The rhetoric of the purpose of marriage is used to justify keeping gays out, but it hasn’t been seriously applied to straight people. That makes such rhetoric look unprincipled.
 
90Domer said:
Don’t feed this troll. This post is offensive on so many levels!
Click to expand...
It’s offensive that I take the logic of “the purpose of marriage is intercourse-derived children” seriously, and expect it to be applied consistently?

How?
 
I know of a couple like this. They are praying for divine intervention.
Their intercourse is properly ordered. Homosexual intercourse is not!
 
NowHereThis said:
It could be a constitutional amendment, just the Federal Marriage Amendment.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

This is a serious point, and calling me a troll doesn’t change that. The rhetoric of the purpose of marriage is used to justify keeping gays out, but it hasn’t been seriously applied to straight people. That makes such rhetoric look unprincipled.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t figure out if you were serious, the proposed law is that lame.

half the anti-gay rhetoric here that you’re lampooning is just as lame. your points, those that are salvageable from that wreckage of a post 1, have been made and demolished in briefs already before the USSC in the two gay cases to be heard this term. the briefs are online, I invite you to examine them and present arguments in a less preposterous, more adult manner.

such a law could be a constitutional amendment only in the same sense that a law granting martians citizenship could be a constitutional amendment. its too ridiculous to extrapolate how ridiculous it is.
 
Do not ignore LOGIC: “We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality” – Ayn Rand.

Loosely paraphrased:

‘Equal is equal, anything else isn’t…“INEQUALITY IS NOT A PROJECTED STATE” Value is what heterosexual marriage has to Societal Agreement, that is NOT EQUALLY REPRESENTED BY HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS, or else heterosexual couples would be attempting to obtain equality with homosexual unity, AND THAT IS NOT THE CASE!!!’
The same goes for heterosexuality and homosexuality. The*** NEEDS ***OF ONE, PRECLUDES THE VALUE OF THE OTHER. Such condition is PERMANENT, AND UNAVOIDABLE (emphasis mine) – TERMS, J.M.Thomas, R., 2012
 
Fairwinds said:
I couldn’t figure out if you were serious, the proposed law is that lame.

half the anti-gay rhetoric here that you’re lampooning is just as lame. your points, those that are salvageable from that wreckage of a post 1, have been made and demolished in briefs already before the USSC in the two gay cases to be heard this term. the briefs are online, I invite you to examine them and present arguments in a less preposterous, more adult manner.

such a law could be a constitutional amendment only in the same sense that a law granting martians citizenship could be a constitutional amendment. its too ridiculous to extrapolate how ridiculous it is.
Click to expand...
If you believe that non-procreative straight people should be allowed to marry, and not gays, what is your rational argument for that position, since the idea of leaving both groups out of marriage is so “preposterous” and “ridiculous”? Citing “the briefs” is too vague. If you want to point me to a specific brief that addresses this point directly, I’d be happy to read it. Otherwise, you haven’t actually made any kind of opposing argument.
 
NowHereThis said:
Yes, it would. They cannot perform what “pro-marriage” advocates argue is the most fundamental function of marriage.
Click to expand...
This is not what pro-marriage advocates are arguing. This is your misinterpretation of what pro-marriage advocates are arguing. The fundamental function of a marriage is not strictly the ability to conceive. It is to be ordered toward the ability to conceive through God’s natural design. This is why contraception, homosexual acts, and individual acts such as masturbation are also not allowed.
 
NowHereThis said:
If you believe that non-procreative straight people should be allowed to marry, and not gays, what is your rational argument for that position, since the idea of leaving both groups out of marriage is so “preposterous” and “ridiculous”? Citing “the briefs” is too vague. If you want to point me to a specific brief that addresses this point directly, I’d be happy to read it. Otherwise, you haven’t actually made any kind of opposing argument.
Click to expand...
The Church no where says that a marriage must produce Children to be valid, Or that sexual union of the married couple must produce Children, What is say is that the couple must be open to that production of Children and not place artifical barriers to it. Homosexal union can never produce Children, But a hetrosexual union even advanced in years, no matter how unlikely is still a possibility. So your proposed Law is non-since. Gay no maatter how they may want to, ine person just does not have the right stuff to make it happen, never did never will and therefore it can not be a marriage.
 
oneGODoneCHURCH said:
The Church no where says that a marriage must produce Children to be valid, Or that sexual union of the married couple must produce Children, What is say is that the couple must be open to that production of Children and not place artifical barriers to it. Homosexal union can never produce Children, But a hetrosexual union even advanced in years, no matter how unlikely is still a possibility. So your proposed Law is non-since. Gay no maatter how they may want to, ine person just does not have the right stuff to make it happen, never did never will and therefore it can not be a marriage.
Click to expand...
By definition, an infertile couple is not open to the production of children. That’s what it means to be “infertile”. They also do not have “the right stuff” to produce children. It may be different right stuff they are lacking, but they lack it nonetheless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top