Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Justsomeguy
I don't think I made point one as clear as I had wished it to be. I wasn't commenting on gay marriage directly, I was just commenting on being gay. As far as the future of humans is concerned at this moment, gay people could not reproduce by themselves. So, it's not favorable for the future of humanity. This is simply referring to gay behavior(being gay). So, gay marriage would either have to promote it or be against being gay. It promotes it. So, I was intending an if A=B and B=C, then A=C argument.
|
Not only does being gay not preclude reproduction, being heterosexual does not include reproduction.
Unless this basis for anti-gay marriage (or anti-gay) legislation is coupled with legislation
requiring reproduction from every man and woman, this basis is too limited to adequately address the perceived problem. And if the goal is simply to require reproduction, then whether someone is gay (or engages in gay marriage) is irrelevent. Reproduction is still possible, the legislation would simply have to provide an enforceable avenue.
In other words, that rationalization for any anti-gay sentiments is illogical.
Quote:
|
What I mean is that the main argument for gay marriage is that gay people should have equal opportunity for marriage. They should be able to marry whoever the please. Well, their marriage wouldn't be the same though. Heterosexual people can naturally have children. Homosexuals cannot. So, their marriage would not posses the equal potential or opportunity(i.e. no potential for naturally conceiving a child).
|
I believe this was a further clarification of the gay = undemocratic concept. It's a very strange concept. What about sterile people? Sterile people have no potential for naturally conceiving (in many cases, any type of conception at all). Are they undemocratic?