Regarding marriage for reproduction only:

How much of a typical marriage is spent reproducing? Not really a lot, honestly. 9 months two to four times typically, so 1.5-3 years, more if you really like kids. You've been married like 15 years, right?

Marriage about more than kids. It's about having someone to share your life with. Society has granted a slew of rights with a marriage license (under $100) that it would cost a fortune in legal fees to get otherwise. So why not just let people who love each other and want to care for each other marry each other?

(And yes, I do have kids, two girls; I wouldn't trade them for the world and would *HATE* to see either marry a gay guy. Don't want the gays marrying your daughters? Let them marry each other.)

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

The list was based on a request by Representative Henry J Hyde (Illinois) for the General Accounting Office "to identify federal laws in which benefits, rights and privileges are contingent on marital status." Their response, which runs 75 pages, is shown in the above link.

The list was compiled for a couple living in the United States. In 2009, the GAO prepared a new list which totaled about 1,100 federal benefits (I don't have a link for that list).

Best regards.

What is the reasoning, the logic behind providing those benefits? Was it done for no reason at all or was there some solid rational thinking that caused the government to provide those benefits?

Things like inheritance rights, property held in common, power of attorney when the other is incapacitated, hospital visitation...

Yes, a lot of those can be done by contracts but then there would be millions of contracts, each potentially different so each would need to be reviewed if involved. So, if all the benefits that are granted by marriage were done by contract, in order to exercise the power of attorney, the contract would have to be reviewed in detail to see of the contract is valid and if it does grant the right to power of attorney. The same for hospital visitations, inheritance rights..........

With marriage all those rights are well understood and fairly universal. There is virtually no question that you have the right to hospital visitation, etc..


It would be a lawyers dream come true to abolish marriage. Millions and millions of new contracts to write up, millions of new contractual disputes to settle....

So much for the lame "marriage is about reproduction" argument to oppose marriage equality.

Source?

You just brought up a sore spot with me. I remember when people were spewing this crap during prop 8 and I still sometimes hear it. My response was/is,

Me "So you're telling me I can't get married?"

"What? No of course not."

Me "Well I can't have children so I shouldn't be allowed to get married and neither should the elderly. I guess me and the old people should only be allowed to have civil unions. We should be happy and grateful with that?"

And if it's a tbm "So, according to you my husband, who I married in the temple, needs to divorce me and marry a woman who can reproduce. Is that what you're saying?"

If it is "unnatural" for same sex partners to have sex because they can't reproduce, then logic would say it is also unatural for me, as a heterosexual woman, to have sex with men since I cannot reproduce. I also took my husband out of the mating pool. He can reproduce, but prefers sex with me. Is he not natural?

I get this, I study evolutionary behavior. I got a masters in it and I see sex as running the whole world and every interaction. Given my education, I also understand that in men, homosexuality is driven by genes and hormones release in utero. In fact, nature has come with a way that the gene is continued to be passed on through generations. It is very natural. There is no debate. But there is also no debate with the fact of evolution and look how many Americans disbelieve that.

As to unnatural, I could probably still have a baby through IVF, which would have made me fit in better in the world, but is definantly not natural nor wanted. I also had a chance if I had tried to get pregant at 14 or 15, before my scarring got bad on my uterus, but then how would I have been viewed as a teenage mother? Natural?

What about women?

If the only purpose of sex for human beings were reproduction, female human beings would go into heat and male human beings would only be interested in having sex with women who were in heat. We don't do that as a species, so, for us sex has a function that is not limited to reproduction. Bonding is one obvious function that sex provides. This function does not require that the partners be of opposite sexes. Just saying, since we're talking about what is natural and normal. If you look at sex critically, you will quickly see that reproduction is not its only function.

Not picking on you, Itzpapalotl, just using your post as a reference:

You wrote:

"Well, if the "unnatural" arguement is all some has then guess what else is "unnatural?"

in-vitro

IUDs

eyeglasses

Riding in airplanes, trains, and automobiles

man-made bridges

polyester-cotton blends (ok, only a lil' unnatural)

embalming the dead with formaldehyde

fridges and microwaves

pleather

plastic

plenty of drugs, both Rx and OTC

nail polish and many cosmetics

Velveeta cheese (still makes a kick ass dip with Ro Tel)

Shall I go on?

If anyone makes the "unnatural" argument about homosexualty, they better stop using all this crap immediately."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,571142,571252#msg-571252

All the items you listed are very natural in that they were concocted of all-natural ingredients by a naturally occuring species.

Doesn't get more natural than that.

Again, I submit that there is nothing in or of this universe that can be considered un-natural. Any evidence to the contrary is, as always, more than welcome.

Timothy

If something exists, it's more or less natural. This list is only to point out how ridiculous the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument. :)

Just didn't want you thinkin' I was dissin' on you!

Timothy

<<Velveeta cheese (still makes a kick ass dip with Ro Tel)>>

Timothy, I rarely disagree with you. But that shit is disgusting. Unless your shit faced. Then it ain't bad.

You crazy. It's good provided you add only about 1/4 of the Velveeta with a full can of Rotel. Then you add tons of pickled jalapenos... but definitely a once in awhile indulgence.

Add about equal part real cheese of your choice to the Velveeta for a hint of cheesey authenticity. It's a GOOD thing.

... cruel and unusual nourishment.

Take McDonalds, PLEASE!

Even so, these brutal indulgences are of our own manufacture which just goes to show that you can fix a lot of things, but you can't fix stupid.

This is the Gospel according to Timothy ... To err is human. To really f**k things up, you need a computer!

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2012 08:23AM by Timothy.

When I joined the church, members were horrified to learn my elderly Dad was living with (not married to) an elderly lady. I explained that marriage would decrease the benefits they got.

Heterosexuality isn't normal...it's just common.

There have been so many types of marriages in our world. When people talk about traditional marriage, perhaps they should specify which one they mean;

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/opinion/05coontz.html/par?_r=1

As the article denotes, it is not same-sex marriage that is or would be the break down of so-called "traditional marriage," as it has been broken down, changed and rearranged by those that claim to support it.

...clearly, women are designed so they can have orgasms independent of reproduction.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2012 10:33PM by Stray Mutt.

There's some fundie feminists (called radfems) who believe that vaginal penetration is "unnatural." Because the clitoris is located on the outside, only mutual masturbation is acceptable between opposite sexes. Impregnation is acceptable only with turkey basters, I guess.

So "unnatural" is a subjective term, clearly.

This feminist likes her some penetration, thankyouverymuch.

Those radfems need to keep up with current science, which has found that the nerve endings that culminate in the clitoris extend inside the the vaginal walls. Or not, who am I to discourage discreet scissoring.

Male and female genitalia compare in erectile tissues. All human babies start out in a female form first.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2012 03:00AM by partymxman.

Not to get off topic, but while they do give you a bunch of rights for the low low price of, usually less then a hundred bucks, they screw you on the back in, when you try to end the arrangement.

Giggity. I love being heterosexual but all my homosexual brothas and sisssstags out there... YEAHHHHHHHHH!!!

I can't believe the "unnatural" argument can last this long.

And, I can't believe the "for procreation only" argument is still held true for so many.

WTF? Use your brains and you'll see how idiotic it is to embrace these two arguments.

... those who employ such arguments are incapable of using their brains as evidenced by their belief that humans are an introduced species brought on by a magical sky-daddy who placed us here for a 'purpose' no one, not even his earthly reps, can explain.

Sadly, stupidity is a most natural human behavior.

Timothy

"As the article denotes, it is not same-sex marriage that is or would be the break down of so-called "traditional marriage," as it has been broken down, changed and rearranged by those that claim to support it."

I hope all those who sceam "Traditional Marriage Only" all the time would read that article.

And I hope that Power 15 in TSCC would read it, too.

Of course, they are probably too mesmerized and drunk in the power and health they get to control or even own to bother with an article like this.