Sunwalker

wait he's back??

Hehehe, I guess that I spoiled it a few moments before

He had mentioned it on IRC.

Yep, we all know now. 

@Speederino: It is not about "fairness", it is about what is possible. I said that both uniting and procreating are unseparable objectives in my view, so in this way it is not possible to have only one. I still think that gay people can live together, I just do not think it is the same as marriage.

@DBZHedgy: The problem with arificial insemination is that it instrumentalize life, it dehumanize people and turn them into a object that can be manipulated. Plus there is all the controversy about who can be considered the parents. I think that everyone has the right to a father and a mother, toying with people's life is disrespectful towards them.

you've got a lot of gall trying to talk about objective reality when all your arguments are just your personal feelings of what you want to be true

Fertility has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Your premise is also too arbitrary to mean anything as people have chosen to have children outside of marriage or to not have children at all within a marriage, yet they are not stigmatized with legal action. There's also no evidence that children who grow up in homosexual households are subject to worse parenting than children in heterosexual households when other variables like income and education are equivalent.

The only time children with gay parents have it particularly tougher is when bigots ostracize them for it. But that's not on the parents. It's on the bigots.

@Nepenthe: I think we are not on the same page. I am not saying that people who have kids outside marriage should get a legal action, nor homosexual couples. I guess things work different were you live than here in Brazil, there isn't a civil gay marriage here but I never heard about anyone here getting sued for being gay, and I do not think they should be. If they are where you live, then I am legitimally sorry for it. What I am saying is that traditional marriage is what the government...

(..cont)What I am saying is that traditional marriage is what the government should foster, because it is what is more healthy for society. (cont...)

(..cont)And, yes, there is evidence for it:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/06/07/peds.2009-3153.full.pdf+html

http://americanvalues.org/catalog/pdfs/parenthood.pdf

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_other_story_about_same-sex_parenting

In short, kids raised by a same-sex couple are more likely to develop emotional and behavioral issues. (cont..)

(..cont)All of this being said, yes, it is wrong to ostracize people with gay parents, and ostracizing their parents is wrong too. This also is dehumanizing them. Such behavior is what must be illegal, mistreating any person, regardless of their lifestyle, is wrong.

Your first link's result blatantly says that children reared by lesbian couples turn out more well adjusted than most children.

Your second link is from a website with a conservative slant.

Your third link makes completely irrelevant marks about separation that say nothing about the actual mental and social development of the children in question, dancing around the answer with hems and haws, probably because the idea that children definitely turn out worse is bullsh...

*bullshit.

And no, everyone here is saying that no one legally bars infertile people or people who don't want kids from getting married. That's because the concept of marriage objectively being for children is also bullshit. We're not dissing litigation, we're dissing the application of socially conservative and religious politics in the face of logic, demonstrated by the fact that you could not answer whether or not you wanted infertile people to be legally barred...

*from getting married. Meanwhile, our side of the argument is internally consistent: Anyone who wants to enter into a healthy and consensual relationship with a human being should be allowed to get married.

@Diogenes: You are being hasty and fitting me into a stereotype. Saying that, morality is also logic applied to human relationships. This does not contradict with a religious view of morality because if there is a God who is the first cause of everything else, then the logic principles also came from him. (cont.)

In order to life even be possible, it is necessary to exist some fundamental principles; otherwise, the Universe would not even exist. Also in order for your mind and reasoning to work, it is also necessary to have some fundamental principles. Therefore, it must exist an objective reality, one that exists outside of our mind, regardless of what one may feel. (cont.)

Regardless of whether someone believes in a God who warns you about what is right or wrong, it should not take long for someone to notice that short-term pleasure might lead to long-term pain and destruction, so in order to prevent it one must use his reason in order to moderate and govern his passions in a non-harmful manner. (cont.)

Still, man has no power to avert death forever, nor to escape pain, but he does have to power to do his duty and to adjust his mind to reality, and live according to nature, that is, according to logic. What he cannot avert or avoid, such as death, he should accept with tranquility; what he can avert and avoid, such as falsehood, immodesty or cravenness, he should reject. Yes, both theists and atheists can live a moral life. (cont.)

What I said previously is that insemination dehumanize people because it is manipulating it, and that it has doubts on who can be considered the parents. Even without needing to look at any formal study, it is not hard to notice that taking always the father or the mother from some kid will leave emotional scars in him or her, and that not having both parents in a loving manner may lead to emotional issues, like depression.

The problem with this conversation is that you are still insisting that your subjective religious beliefs are irrefutable logic. Until you scientifically prove that a God actually exists, then prove that the God that does exist is the one from the Christian Bible, then prove that the God from the Bible actually doesn't want gay people marrying, you're arguing on terms that non-religious people are never going to agree to as the baseline. You might as well be starting from what Zeus or...

Buddha thinks about this ruling.

@Nepenthe: I am not saying it is irrefutable logic, I am saying that it can be approached in a logical manner. And I did not use religious arguments. I also never said anything in the lines of “it is this way because God says so”. What I did say was that this approach has no conflict with believing in God, and that it also works for those who not believe in him. (cont.)

If God made the Universe with all the rules in which he works, then nothing that comes from Him (including his Word) can deny each other. For the believer, it is not “this is this way because God says so”, but rather “God says so because it is this way”. (cont.)

However, even if someone doesn’t believe in God, he can still observe reality and learn from it. The question here is that there are people (both religious and not) who think that using religious arguments is the only way to make a case for it, so a possible initial reaction is to think that a religious argument was made, even if it wasn’t. (cont.)

Moreover, the existence of God is not a scientific question. Science deals with the workings of the physical laws by experimenting stuff, while God, if existing, is the one who made those laws. In other words, God is outside those laws. Science cannot say one way or another why a certain physical law works in a certain way and not another, or how those laws came to be. But Science is not the only way of knowing reality. (cont.)

The proof of the God from the Christian Bible can be History itself. It takes centuries for a historical event to be turned into myths and legends, but the narrative of the life of Christ is the same since the first century. The gospels can be dated from this time period, and it also existed secular historians who talked about it (e.g. Josephus). (cont.)

This was a matter of a couple of decades, not centuries, there were not enough time to a fantastic legend, like the Greek Gods, to be created. And also many living testimonies were alive at that time, so if the history were a invention it wouldn’t catch on. This is one of the reasons of why I do not believe in Zeus, for example.