Michael Altarriba wrote:

Procreation requires a sperm and egg meet such that the egg becomes
fertilized, then that egg needs to spend nine months or so in the right
environment. There are many ways of achieving this besides the usual
one.

Are you in favor of any method of producing babies that works? Any moral
limits whatsoever?

In any case, procreation is not the only reason people marry.

True enough; marriage doesn't require procreation, but procreation does
require marriage.

Norms change. Children have been are are born into familes that don't
consist of the biological parents. Those children grow up and have
lives that are just fine.

So how or why did the concept of marriage ever get off the ground?

CAn you reverse your thinking and imagine a reason FOR marriage?

There are many kinds of families, and that "for the life of the couple"
part isn't working out so well.

So might as well give up on it, right?

How many times will I need to repeat this?

A. Marriage has many purposes, including providing an environment for
procreation.

B. Procreation can and does happen in environments other than those in
which both of the biological parents are present.

C. Same-sex couples do *all* of the things that mixed-sex couples do,
including *raise children.* While they can't combine their genetic
material to produce offspring, many mixed-sex couples can't either, or
choose not to, yet they may marry.

D. In the case of a Lesbian couple, one of the partners can contribute
her genetic material, and give birth to her child.

So can single women, "polyamorous" (polygamous) families, and surrogate mothers.

The question is not whether these things can be done; it is what do we want
to be the system? And what do we base our decision on?
Tax returns? Inheritance laws?

Or the children?

Adopted children are illegitimate? Children of previous marriages are
illegitimate? Children produced via artificial insemination are
illegitimate? Adopted children are in hell?

Perhaps I can short-circuit these questions by just defining legitimacy.
It means simply that a child is conceived by and born to a married couple.

Marriage carries with it certain obligations and responsibilities.
Legally speaking, marriage is a form of legally binding contract. For
such a contract to be binding, it must be entered into without duress.
It is presumed that children below the age of maturity (whatever that
may be in a particular State) are not able to give consent, and freely
enter into such a binding relationship.

As for the "unrelated" part, I was trying to keep things simple, and go
along with current laws concerning marriage and incest.

But why go along with such archaic rules? What is wrong with incest?

Perhaps you do have some limits, some moral values.

I hope it is based on the needs of the children, not the adults who have
control over how they procreate.

Gary Eickmeier

Michael Altarriba wrote:

Well then, why not require a fertility test before marriage? What could
be simpler than "Only fertile, mixed-sex couples can marry." ?

What do you do about couples who are fertile, but simply don't want to
have children?

What about couples who plan to adopt, or who have children from
previous marriages?

"Simplicity" is a poor reason for denying the institution of marriage
to same-sex couples... never mind the fact that childrearing is hardly
the only reason that couples marry.

Good grief, some of you people are simple. Procreation requires a man
and a woman. It's a biological thing. According to a longstanding social
norm, we ask that a couple get married before producing children, for
the children's sake. It's called a family, and is intended to last for
the life of the couple.

So why shouldn't gay couples be allowed to get married? Because they
cannot reproduce without outside, artificial means. This means that one
parent will not be related to the child. In some cases neither will.
This would be a SYSTEM in which we PLAN to have illegitimate children,
and to hell with their knowing who their real parents are.

What about the simplicity of "Only couples composed of two consenting,
unrelated adults may marry"? It's only one sentence, and the words
"consenting" and "unrelated" can be further specified as "over the age
of maturity and of their own free will" and "{insert logical negation
of the legal definiton of incest here}", respectively.

Consenting to what, exactly?

And why the conditions? Do you have some limits?

You're the only one who seems to be hung up on the issue of children
knowing the identity of their biological parents.

And, if that's your only complaint, then are you OK with couples
adopting if they stay in contact with the child's biological parents?

Adoption is not the point of this discussion.

Gary Eickmeier

"Simplicity" is a poor reason for denying the institution of marriage
to same-sex couples... never mind the fact that childrearing is hardly
the only reason that couples marry.

Good grief, some of you people are simple.

Procreation requires a man
and a woman. It's a biological thing. According to a longstanding social
norm, we ask that a couple get married before producing children, for
the children's sake. It's called a family, and is intended to last for
the life of the couple.

So why shouldn't gay couples be allowed to get married? Because they
cannot reproduce without outside, artificial means.

This means that one
parent will not be related to the child. In some cases neither will.
This would be a SYSTEM in which we PLAN to have illegitimate children,
and to hell with their knowing who their real parents are.

Michael Altarriba wrote:

For Michael, James, and Gregory -

I guess you guys are right. I just wasn't being liberal enough in my
thinking. I was looking at marriage as a social institution for the
benefit of the children and completely forgetting about the needs of the
adults. We have been so tied to this artificial concept of "family" that
we have failed to see other possibilities in a more free-thinking society.

Of course it doesn't matter if you know who you are, or who your parents
are, as long as you've got a nice house and some things.

Why even have marriage at all?

That would eliminate the whole problem. We could just
"have babies" and even pass them around if someone is less fortunate and
hasn't got one. All we would have to do is make sure that someone was
watching them at all times. Doesn't have to be two parents though, of
either sex!

Why should two individuals be allowed to hog the children
for so long? Why couldn't we have polygamy, or even NO-gamy!

Without being tied to a concept of marriage, we could live in communes of any
number of people, and share many babies. The stories around the campfire
would rock! Babysitters? Forgetaboutit.

Hey, this liberalization is really freeing up my thinking!

Why not have custom babies and build a super race?

Or, you could have a caucasian
baby one time, then a Chinese one the next, and a black one the next -
just choose your vat. A whole new industry!

How about baby factories,
with women volunteers getting impregnated on an annual basis, with three
months off in between! Could even have some "natural" insemination
rooms, for a price, know-whut-uh-mean?

Terry Cross wrote:

J Strickland wrote:

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:r2i0i11f8mv5u5f3di66gdmeelu39s4ncm@4ax.com...

You see, if you want to call marriage a religious
ceremony or a representation of their love before a spiritual being, then
I can go to the words of James Madison where he specifically noted that
there is a distinct separation of church and state. If religious people want to
keep their precious word "marriage," then they can do without the rights
afforded by our government to married people by having an equitable
separation of this right for all citizens. This would mean that you could
be married but get no benefit by it. After all, if it only matters in the
eyes of God that you are married then be married with no benefits.

Exactly. The state should not have ministers performing legal
services, and ministers should not be dependent on the state for
religious licenses. The mixture is unholy and problematic.

*That* is the root of the problem.

No, the root of the problem is the children.

It is not for religious reasons that gay "marriage" is wrong, it is for
the children. Marriage is about an institution for the procreation and
raising of children in a family that consists of their real mother and
father. A baby is not a possession, it is a human being, with a right
to know who he or she is, a right to know who the parents are and, if
possible, to be raised by those natural parents.

Gays are not going to be satisfied with adopting. They are going to
inseminate themselves, use donated eggs, surrogate mothers, or whatever
other unnatural means is necessary to get their "baby." Now imagine
growing up as that baby in a homosexual family, and suddenly realizing
that these people are not your real parents. You will want to know who
your real parents are, and you have a right to know. How would you like
to find out that you will never know who your father was, because he is
just an anonymous sperm from Vat 69? That your mother is really the
lady across the street? There have been a few cases already of gays who
have separated and had raging custody battles because one of them had
nothing to do with the procreation of the child.

Yes, heterosexual couples can resort to the same techniques for
conception, in extreme cases, which I'm not sure I agree with either.
But with gay marriage we would be institutionalizing a type of family
structure that can ONLY be possible with these artificial means of
conceiving human beings.

That is why it is wrong.

It is not for religious reasons that gay "marriage" is wrong, it is for
the children. Marriage is about an institution for the procreation and
raising of children in a family that consists of their real mother and
father. A baby is not a possession, it is a human being, with a right to
know who he or she is, a right to know who the parents are and, if
possible, to be raised by those natural parents.

Gays are not going to be satisfied with adopting. They are going to
inseminate themselves, use donated eggs, surrogate mothers, or whatever
other unnatural means is necessary to get their "baby." Now imagine
growing up as that baby in a homosexual family, and suddenly realizing
that these people are not your real parents. You will want to know who
your real parents are, and you have a right to know. How would you like
to find out that you will never know who your father was, because he is
just an anonymous sperm from Vat 69? That your mother is really the lady
across the street? There have been a few cases already of gays who have
separated and had raging custody battles because one of them had nothing
to do with the procreation of the child.

Yes, heterosexual couples can resort to the same techniques for
conception, in extreme cases, which I'm not sure I agree with either.
But with gay marriage we would be institutionalizing a type of family
structure that can ONLY be possible with these artificial means of
conceiving human beings.