Chuck Shumer says "Yes" to Gay Marriage

Law of Nature (0.00 / 0)

I know I will take heat for this, but here goes.

Only a Man/Woman combination can produce a Human Life.

Man/Man or Woman/Woman can not without the aid of science that actually involves a Man/Woman combination (or other questionable scientific methods - cloning).

So Law of Nature says that a marriage between Man and Woman is natural. Marriage between same sex is unnatural. At least for the Natural propagation of the species.

Okay, let me have it.

---

by: MisterEd @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 17:26:54 PM UTC

But ..... (0.00 / 0)

If two senior citizens, one male, one female, want to get married, should they be prevented from doing so because the woman is too old to bear children? Likewise, should sterile people of any age be prevented from marrying?

---

by: DocJess @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 17:44:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In my book? (0.00 / 0)

Yes - But I am only one voice.

I am not against granting Civil Unions that have the same Tax or visitation type rights, but a Marriage in my book is by the Law of Nature. Probably my religious upbringing, but that is where I stand.

---

by: MisterEd @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 17:49:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Took a long time to phrase this.... (0.00 / 0)

But here are my questions...

Since marriage is only for procreation, is there something in your religion that says a man must divorce his wife once she passes menopause? Since she's no longer able to "produce" is he supposed to "trade her in" on a more fertile version? Is there some grandfather clause for older wives?

If this couple were married when they were in their early 20's, with every intention of having a whole gaggle of kids, and the next year, the wife got uterine cancer, and needed a hysterectomy to live, does your religion require that the man divorce her since she's now, um, I don't know, "unworthy"? Perhaps he should knock her up so she can produce a child, even though she'll die of cancer soon after? Does your religion say he should take a second wife? Simultaneously?

---

by: DocJess @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 10:39:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not what I said (0.00 / 0)

Never said Marriage was only for procreation. Simply that a man and woman was the only way to procreate. So using the law of nature, logic dictates that only a union between man and woman would provide for the natural survival of the species.

---

by: MisterEd @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:58:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who the hell cares that (0.00 / 0)

only a man and woman can produce a human life.

The worlds population is growing soo much, that having a part of the population in relationships that wont produce offspring isnt really a bad thing.

---

by: Travis Liles @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 18:01:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gay Marriage (0.00 / 0)

I agree that everyone should have the same rights.  However, if that can be achieved with civil unions then I don't see why we need to move on to marriage.  You can't use the separate but equal argument against civil unions because if the union specifically affords you the same rights as marriage then they are the same no matter what it is called.  Therefore, if you can have the same rights without offending people of faith by calling it marriage it should be an acceptable compromise.  What we need is a national law forcing all states to at the very least recognize the civil unions that exist.

---

by: swill25 @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 19:52:02 PM UTC

Trying again (4.00 / 1)

Huh--I tried to post earlier on this, but it seems like it didn't take.

That's OK--the other commenters have said some of what I wanted to say.

I'll just stress that while I disagree with MisterEd on the "law of nature," I respect his view. But I don't see why the government should be the arbiter of that disagreement. The government should not tell churches whom they can marry and whom they can't. Right now, there are plenty of large denominations that sanction same-sex marriage, but those marriages are then not recognized by the government.

If a Jewish temple wants to tell its congregants they can't eat pork or a Catholic diocese wants to tell its members they can't masturbate, that's between the individual religious organization and its adherents. We would find it absurd if the government were to tell Catholics "no, you cannot eat pork either." Or perhaps "you can eat pork if you want to, but you can't call it human food. Find another word besides food."  

---

by: SarahLawrence Scott @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 20:53:42 PM UTC

Marriage is a religious concept. (4.00 / 1)

I believe that ONLY civil unions should be recognized by the state and the feds.
Put in a grandfather clause for those before.
A union between two humanbeings.
Separation between Church and State.
Nothing needs to be brought up with any religion.
A Civil Union is a legal binding contract.

Still on the subject.
Did you read Frank's comments on Scalia's opinions.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...

---

by: jean @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 21:57:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ihardly know anybody who is gay, but (0.00 / 0)

I so agree, doc, why should us straight folks get to have privileges that other? i cant think of a reason, go chucky, even if it took him awhile. human rights for ALL humans!!!!!

---

by: UplandPoet @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:17:37 PM UTC