Working on my traditional marriage argument.

And? Just how are sexual relations so inexorably linked that a mother and grandmother together cannot be a marriage because they dont have sex with each other. You want to claim that procreation has no relation to marriage while insisting sexual relations does, with no justification.

 

Hang on...

How many times have you said that gay marriage is unacceptable because only heterosexuals produce children, or because gay sex is a "perversion"?

Now, suddenly, you flip-flop and say sexual relations has no relation to marriage?!

Do you even know what you believe any more?

 

No. Sexual relations and procretation are inexorably linked to traditional marriage. I was asking you what is the link between sexual relations and gay marriage.

 

Your starting point seems to be that there is an inherent difference between marriage between heterosexuals and marriage between homosexuals.

What you seem to be missing is the whole point of this thread: there should be no difference.

 

Amazing how much you can write in response to my posts without ever addressing the topic within those posts.

 

Pot calling the kettle black.

That being said, I agree that sex is linked to (but not dependant on) marriage because sexual activity is part of the social contract that is marriage. I just believe that it's none of my business what kind of sex is enjoyed by other adults and their consensual partners.

I believe procreation is a side effect of certain kinds of sex, which is therefore generally linked to sex, but has little to do with any previous agreements of fidelity.

 

There is no requirement of sex in marriage law. Not all couples are willing or able to engage in sexual relations. Every single argument used to claim marriage is unrelated to procreation, can be used to demonstrate that sex is unrelated to marriage.
And I have the law to demonstrate the link between marriage and procreation. You have nothing to demonstrate the link between sex and marriage.

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

 

Long ago refuted.

 

Paternity laws are rather unrelated to whether two people should or should not be allowed to marry.

 

You are once again resorting to outdated concepts in the law that no longer apply. Prior to DNA testing being available, it was "logical" to "presume" paternity based on on-going sexual relationship between two married people. . . .

NO LONGER. Now, the parent who want to demonstrate that that old concept is false can just have recourse to DNA testing to either prove or disprove paternity.

Please remember that we no longer live in the 19th century when presenting your arguments!

 

What is more, this change in who can marry did not inhibit the effectiveness of the presumption of paternity. If anything, it only helps by insuring that a child born to a married same sex couples has two legal responsible parents.

 

Certainly not as unrelated as sexual relations.

 

How would a child ever be born to a same sex couple? A biological impossibility.

 

Actually its still current in all 50 states.

With or without DNA testing it would be illogical to "presume" paternity based on on-going sexual relationship between two people of the same sex.

I suspect for every one child whose paternity is determined by DNA testing, there is 100 determined by the presumption of paternity of marriage.

Even in the 21st century with DNA testing, 1000s of children are born with no legally identified father obligated to provide and care for the child. Virtually all of them born to single mothers.

 

Yes, dear. . .the law may still be on the books. . . but it wouldn't stand (and I am certain it didn't in many cases) against a simple DNA test!
So. . .for the purpose it was intended for. . ..it is absolute! Can't you see that?

And OBVIOUSLY paternity wouldn't be "presumed" if the parents consist of two father! DUH! What's your point? What about heterosexual couples who use sperm donors or the eggs from a surrogate? This only CONFIRMS that "presumed paternity" law is obsolete!

And it doesn't matter how many paternity cases resort to the outdated "presumption of paternity" clause. . .EVERYONE of those could have recourse to the "DNA testing" to either prove or disprove paternity. . .

In fact, all you are saying is very irrelevant, as there is a HUGE difference between being a "donor" of sperm (whether he is married to the mother or not) and a FATHER.

And once again, your last comment only confirm how obsolete this law is, since so many children are born to SINGLE mothers. . .and, OBVIOUSLY, that doesn't mean they are not born, that they are not born of two people, whether those people are married (or divorced, or single, or have gone through a lot of headaches and financial hardship to create a child because they wanted one so much) or not.

It is not about the "conception." It is about the WANTING and the COMMITMENT of parents. . .and that part can come from a heterosexual couple, or an homosexual couple. . .or even from a SINGLE parent.

 

What does it matter?

Children who are wanted and love do not care whether they come from the sperm of one father and the egg of one mother, as long as they have LOVING parents!

You certainly can't say that, because children are born from one man and one woman. . whether they are married or not, it assures that they will be wanted, loved, cared for, and supported throughout their childhood by the two "natural" birth parents!

Get real!

 

That's why heterosexual couples are encouraged to marry because the most common alternative to being born to their married mother and father in the home, is for a child to be born to a single mother on her own with an absent or even unknown father.

 

Actually, in most states, after two years, even a DNA test wont overcome a presumption of paternity in marriage.

 

Dear, if a heterosexual marriage would guarantee that a child would grow up with both a LOVING mother and a LOVING, CARING, supportive father . . .you MIGHT have a point.

The fact is that most kids who begin their life in a two parents family, with their birth parents end up being raised by single parents and/or by step parents, mixed families. . .or put in foster care!

Maybe, instead of spending so much time trying to vilify gay couples and fight against what is inevitable (gay marriage recognition by every State in the Union), you should have spent the last 30 years fighting against divorce by heterosexual couples, child abuse, child neglect and children being abandoned by one (or both) of his/her birth parents!

The ONLY thing gay couple who want children (and not all couples, neither homosexual or heterosexual, want children) will do is INCREASE the chance that some kid will have a HOME with TWO parents instead of being raised in a foster home or neglected by his uncaring heterosexual parents!

Homosexual couples will NOT be able to adopt children who are living with their parents in a "traditional" family unit, and who are well cared for by those parents. . .so heterosexual couples who care for their children have NOTHING to worry about.

We have already agreed that it is better for a child to be raised by TWO parents who love him/her and are committed to him/her. . .Ideally, this would be BOTH of his/her birth parents. . .but this is not "EDEN" (remember. . ..we are "EAST OF EDEN?") and this is no longer (it may never have been. . .based on how many children were abused, neglected, or taking advantage of for centuries by their own parents!) the "norm." So. . .at least, we can provide some of those children who do NOT have that "ideal' family unit with a potential alternative: TWO parents of the SAME SEX who WANT to raise a child!

 

Don't be silly! if the "presumed father" decides he is tired of playing "good guy" and decides to divorce his wife and doesn't want to pay child support for the child who is not his. . .obviously he will be able to demonstrate (and maybe even use this in a divorce court) that the child is not his based on DNA!

Obviously, if he prefers not to know, and he prefers to remain the "legal father," that is the choice HE makes. . .unless the mother suddenly decides she wants nothing from that guy anymore. . .not even child support, and SHE makes the point that he is not the father, or the real father re-appears on the scene and DEMANDS to be recognize (based on DNA evidence) as the birth father. . .

 

The same way it happens with opposite-sex couples who use and require other methods of fertility, and the same presumption applies to them the same way.

 

That's the dumbest thing I've read in awhile... You post this repeatedly as if it proves your point, when it actually proves mine...

If sex is the primary means of procreation, and it is assumed that a married woman's husband is the father of children born during her marriage, doesn't this prove that the married couple are presumed to be having sex?!

 

Obviously you've never known any adopted children.

 

I have known MANY adopted kids. I was an adoption case worker and what I know is that you make NO sense.The pointy is that biology is a lot less important, if it's important at all than many other factors. Can you possibly not get that?

 

Ah, you mean when one of the partners agree to have the other artificially inseminated. As we have seen, that applies whether they are married or not. Has nothing to do with marriage. The agreement ensures they have two parents.