Working on my traditional marriage argument.

???? Only when it is a man, having sex with the woman who gives birth. Has no application when its a man having sex with another man or a woman with a woman. Directly refutes your point.

 

Both are rather irrelevant to the issue of who can marry who.

When you are getting married nobody questions paternity because it is irrelevant. When you are getting married they also should not question your sex life because that is also irrelevant.

 

Birth of a child only obligates two people in the world. The mother who gave birth and the man who caused her to do so, presumed to be the husband. Biology obligates the mother and father. Any other parental obligations are voluntarily assumed.

 

Certainly irrelevant to this new "gay marriage". Tell that to logician. He is the one who insists that procreation is unrelated to marriage while sexual relations are somehow so fundamental, that a relationship without it isn't a marriage.

 

Both are irrelevant. Procreation and sex.

Asexuals can marry and do so all the time. So do the infertile and the elderly.

 

The marriage and presumption serves two functions. First, the marriage protects it from being challenged, as the father is presumed to be the father without regard to biological evidence presented by third parties to the contrary. It therefore. protects the family unit. Keep in mind, this applies whether it was conducted through artificial insemination or if the couple chose for the mother to have sex with another for sake of getting pregnant, as can and has been the case.

Secondly, just as with opposite sex couples, it helps to simplify the matter without requiring the review of paperwork, biological tests or other such things. If an opposite sex couple had a child together before biological tests were possible, the presumption was necessary to assign the father. Today, this is more a matter of convenience, as biological tests are now possible, and can override the presumption of paternity (within 2 years, depending on circumstance and jurisdiction). The presumption of paternity therefore serves today as a convenience, and to protect the family unit from third parties challenging the parentage. Which applies just the same regardless of the genders involved.

 

I posted this before but you keep repeating this stupidity

Family Law in Massachusetts
Same-sex couples can marry in Massachusetts. Single gay people can adopt in Massachusetts; same-sex couples can jointly become the legal parents of a child.
Do we need to do a second-parent adoption if we are married or in a civil union?

A child born to a married or civil union couple is presumed to be the child of both members of the couple. While that is good news, it is still extremely important to adopt because another state might not respect the presumption if the couple moves. Adoption is a court judgment creating a parent-child relationship and is very likely to be respected by other states, even if these states are otherwise hostile to same-sex couples or parenting.
http://www.glad.org/rights/massachusetts/c/family-law-in-massachusetts/

N.Y. Judge Alarms Gay Parents by Finding Marriage Law Negates Need for Adoption
They married in 2011 and made sure both of their names were on their son’s birth certificate two years later, taking advantage of a New York State law that a child born to a married couple is presumed to be both of theirs, even if conceived through artificial insemination.

Judge López Torres acknowledged her ruling left couples facing a legal risk. But she said that was an issue for the courts in other states to settle. Moreover, she wrote that granting the adoption would mean that “true marriage equality remains yet to be attained” and that “a same-sex marriage remains somehow insufficient to establish a parent-child relationship.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/n...riage-law-negates-need-for-adoption.html?_r=0

 

The Supreme court has said otherwise.

Most of our nations history of marriage, with sex outside of marriage illegal for a man and woman, wasn't because sexual relations lead to orgasms. It was instead because sexual relations between a man and a woman frequently lead to procreation.

Marriage between two people of the same sex was nonexistent and therefore irrelevant to the very existence and survival of the race. Only heterosexual relations perpetuate the human species and marriage becomes fundamental to the survival of the race when the law forbids sexual relations between men and women outside of marriage.

And this or similar statute in all 50 states would seem to indicate otherwise.

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;

 

So what's your point? That in order to be married the two people in question must be able to procreate and must have sexual relations even if they do not want to or are incapable of doing so?

Marriage between people of the same sex has been nonexistent because it has been illegal and punishable by death just about everywhere for hundreds of years.

This is no longer the case though as people do not have to have sex anymore to procreate if they do not want to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_insemination

Whose paternity is being discussed when two people are preparing to get married? I don't understand why you keep posting this.

 

Yes you have. Still not sure of your point. Its the voluntary agreement to have your partner artificially inseminated and the voluntary acknowledgement of parentage on the birth certificate that creates the obligations. Would apply equally even if they are not married. If a man is married to a woman, he is obligated by law to provide and care for the child whether he wants to assume those obligations or not. A lesbian spouse is not.

So Im not sure why "you keep repeating this stupidity"

 

That wasn't the point I was responding to about biology being a lot less important. That's a fairly general, and therefore meaningless, comment anyway. What I was responding to was this, "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!"

That's BS.

 

Unless it is proven otherwise.

Didn't we already bring that up about your presumption of paternity post?

You often cite that passage which is there to to protect the integrity of the family in the instance that someone outside the marriage claims to be the father of the child. And if he does not provide any evidence to back up his claim then the law is there to, again, protect the integrity of the family. It is also used to provide paternity to the child in the case that the presumed father of the child denies being the father and again fails to provide evidence that he is not the father, thus putting the burden of parental responsibility on him.

It is not there however to determine whether or not two men or two women should be legally allowed to marry.

You also often leave out a majority of the information.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.160.htm

 

No. Its why marriage is limited to a man and a woman. It is why sexual relations and procreation ARE relevant to the legal INSTITUTION of marriage, EVEN though they may not be relevant in an individual marriage.

Not sure of your point. Even if it had been common, it never would have become anything other than irrelevant to the "existence and survival of the race". In ancient BC Rome when homosexual relations were celebrated, Emperors sometimes married someone of the same sex but still,

Because "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."

??? I said "Only heterosexual relations perpetuate the human species". Laboratories or turkey basters aren't "relations" between two people. So not sure of your point.

Only the husband getting married to a woman. Because only a man can cause a woman to give birth. Another woman cannot. Its biology, not some condemnation of lesbians.

 

Then people who are incapable of procreating or who choose not to have sex should not be allowed into the institution of marriage if it is required that one must procreate. Yet you always insist on allowing them to marry, why? It makes no sense.

Marriage is irrelevant to the survival of our race since people can and do procreate outside of marriage all the time. You don't need to be married to procreate.

I'm sorry, do you live in Ancient Rome? I know I certainly do not and their laws do not apply to me or anyone else.

The point is people do not need to have sex to make babies. So sex is irrelevant to two people choosing to be married, especially if they are asexual and find the idea completely revolting. Just like the continuation of our species is not relevant to marriage since people can procreate outside marriage.

Again, what does this have to do with whether or not two people, either of the same or opposite sex, decide to get married?

 

Except it doesn't apply in the case or two people of the same gender.

 

Well, I guess they should in order to avoid offending the way you think things should be, which is pretty much irrelevant here. There is no governmental concern that married couples might not procreate but instead they are concerned unmarried couples will likely do so anyway whether they are married or not. A concern only present when the couple is made up of a man or a woman.

 

No one has claimed otherwise. In fact Ive repeatedly pointed to the two year limitation during which it can be proven otherwise.

 

You are making my point for me. Only a man is presumed to be the father of a child because of his relationship to the mother.

 

Then it would follow that they don't care about sperms and eggs at all. Therefore, there is no valid reason to oppose same sex marriage on the basis of children and parenting. Right? Otherwise, why are we even talking about children?

- - - Updated - - -

You don't read very well do you?

 

And another silly comment!

I actually am the mother of an adopted child. We adopted her when she was between the age of 5 and 6 from an orphanage in Korea. She is now 36 and a beautiful young woman with two gorgeous boys. We love her just as we love our natural son, and she loves us and continues to prove it as years go by.

Here she is at the age of 9

 

That is a matter for case law, which will consider whether the pronouns were essential for the intent of the law, or if the pronouns were incidental to the time when only opposite-sex couples could marry. Of the case-law I have read on the subject since same-sex marriage became legal, they have acknowledged that the presumption of paternity is not a law that is built on enforcing biology, often functioning in spite of biology. Therefore, the courts have ruled that the intent of the law is not specifically related to the biological gender of the "father" which was merely incidental to the fact that only men could marry women at the time of the laws writing. Rather it is related to protecting the family unit regardless of biology.

Regardless, I'm glad you acknowledge these are worthwhile purposes.

 

Wrong. . .I KNOW. . .as an adoptive parent.

Our child always knew she was adopted and while she was somewhat curious about her birth parents, she NEVER suffered from not being able to trace them. She was loved, and she loved us.

We have been her parents for 30 years, and we are the grand-parents of her children. . .just as we are the grand-parents of our natural born son's children.

 

You are obtuse beyond belief ! You said " If a man is married to a woman, he is obligated by law to provide and care for the child whether he wants to assume those obligations or not. A lesbian spouse is not." I just proved that you are wrong at least in two states and I believe that is the case in all states where SSM is legal . What do you not get about that? Now prove ME wrong or shut up.

 

Repeatedly refuted

 

Strawman