Thread: Proposition 8 Overturned by Federal Judge

Originally Posted by gunnut

Aha, so we have to draw a line somewhere. Why is your line better than my line?

I haven't drawn a line on that issue.

And I disagree with that ruling. The rationalization is based on "privacy." A woman has the right to do what she wants. It's her body. Well, close relatives should be able to reproduce should they choose to. It's their bodies and their choice. Somehow privacy disappeared all of a sudden. I know you'll argue "social cost." What's the social cost of a murdered fetus? Or a woman who could not have another child due to abortion?

I disagree with Roe v Wade and think the social cost is far too high.

I've already stated that I do not agree with these provisions.

Yet those provisions are there.

I agree. Let's redo our census and take out all references to gender and ethnicity. All the government needs to know is how many people live at this address. Done.

100% agree

Sure it matters.

Let's say my co-worker, Bill Williams, introduces me to his partner, Ron. Should he be addressed as Mr. Williams, Mrs. Williams, or does he have another name that he uses? Or maybe Bill took Ron's last name, Williams.

When Bill introduces Ron to other people, does he refer Ron as his "husband" or "wife?" Or does he use the word "partner?" The words "husband" and "wife" is linked to marriage. No heterosexual married couple introduces each other as "partner." If they (homosexuals) want the word marriage, then they should have no problem adopting the words "husband" and "wife." As of now, they want the word "marriage" but will change some names and addresses where they see fit. Classic "I want my cake and eat it too."

Your splitting hairs

Originally Posted by zraver

No I did not, Dale did.

Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
If straights don't treat marriage as sacred why should gays be denied?

Well, then you picked up the refrain.

And gay couples can parent via procreation, adoption or children from previous relationships. In fact gays tend to be good parents.

This does not argue well for same-sex marriage. It argues better for social partnerships with the right to adopt or raise children. I suppose the supply of orphans and abandoned children will always be sufficient to satisfy the parenting urge of all couples. Who knows... But the fact remains that supply is not a concern for opposite-sex couples who can procreate.

What benefits, most of the benefits are legal and tax related not handouts.

Exactly.

gays tend to pay more taxes and use less social services.

This is not germane to the issue.

Gay's can parent

Nor, is this.

Marriage is and always has been a fluid definition in our society. The last major revision was the advent of no fault divorces with the idea that people could fall out of love and thus break the marriage contract.

The definition of marriage and the ease with which it can dissolved does not argue for the issue.

In the mid 1800's polygamy was a real question and we've had classes that used arranged marriages. In fact the whole idea of marriage has nothing to do with procreation but instead deals with property.

The question of property is in the nature of protecting families. If it were otherwise, why has it mattered all this time that a couple be of the opposite-sex to marry? Because there was a presumption of procreation. Procreation is elemental. All else flows from it.

Man is not meant to be monogamous. If you look at our physical construction you'll find we are built to be sluts. Our penis is large, our balls full and low hanging for mutliple discharges, women just get warmed up and can go for multi-orgasmic as the man is finishing (implying she is built for a succession of partners), our sperm has 3 types of cells- impregnation cells that seek out the egg, combat cells the look for other sperm to eat and twin tailed blockers that seek to bar the path of any hostile sperm that come later.

Speak for yourself. Man is monogamous by nature if not behavior. A woman's multiple orgasms are so the man is assured of an organism. It wouldn't do for her to roll over and call it quits as some men are apt to do. Also, many animals are monogamous. As man has become more civilized he has arranged his society to bring order to certain human behaviors. It is far better for there to be parents to care for children. That is more likely for parents who create their own children. If everyone ran around fornicating with anyone they wished, who would be responsible for all the babies? The mothers? And how would the mother's cope? No doubt man is a straying animal, but he can find contentment with one partner through the combined
force of moral structures and financial incentives.

...given the high numbers of unwed birth, our birthrate won't be undone by gays.

Who knows what the future will bring. I see a stricter society in the future. The wheel always turns when society becomes intemperate. We're due.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Well, then you picked up the refrain.

Dale was arguing from tradition

This does not argue well for same-sex marriage. It argues better for social partnerships with the right to adopt or raise children. I suppose the supply of orphans and abandoned children will always be sufficient to satisfy the parenting urge of all couples. Who knows... But the fact remains that supply is not a concern for opposite-sex couples who can procreate.

Supply is not a concern period.

Exactly.

This is not germane to the issue.

yes it is since you allege that gay marriage will cause budget shotfalls.

Nor, is this.

Your the one who introduced parenting

The definition of marriage and the ease with which it can dissolved does not argue for the issue.

It proves there is no monolithic definition of marriage. Rather the definition of marriage is fluid.

The question of property is in the nature of protecting families. If it were otherwise, why has it mattered all this time that a couple be of the opposite-sex to marry? Because there was a presumption of procreation. Procreation is elemental. All else flows from it.

Biological offspring might inherit, but so do adoptive children. Then again they might not get anything.

Speak for yourself. Man is monogamous by nature if not behavior.

That is not what the science shows. We are built for multiple partners in rapid succession. This is backed up by anthropology.

A woman's multiple orgasms are so the man is assured of an organism.

Man tends to finish first... The woman's delayed orgasm is the create a sense of unfulfilled need that she can sate with more partners.

It wouldn't do for her to roll over and call it quits as some men are apt to do. Also, many animals are monogamous.

Of the great apes, none are monogamous by nature

As man has become more civilized he has arranged his society to bring order to certain human behaviors. It is far better for there to be parents to care for children. That is more likely for parents who create their own children. If everyone ran around fornicating with anyone they wished, who would be responsible for all the babies? The mothers? And how would the mother's cope? No doubt man is a straying animal, but he can find contentment with one partner through the combined
force of moral structures and financial incentives.

In a small group which is how humans have lived for most of our species time on Earth, it would be a group job. In fact millions of people live in a modified version of this. We did not stress paternity until we developed the idea of personal property.

Who knows what the future will bring. I see a stricter society in the future. The wheel always turns when society becomes intemperate. We're due.

I think gays will get the right to marriage and that lo and behold society won't collapse.

Originally Posted by zraver

No I did not, Dale did.

I did? That's an odd word for me to have used.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

I did? That's an odd word for me to have used.

-dale

your words,

If it's not legally about giving favorable treatment to relationships that can ensure procreation then it's not legally about anything.

Originally Posted by zraver

your words,

Yes, my words.

If =/= "sacred"
it's =/= "sacred"
not =/= "sacred"
legally =/= "sacred"
about =/= "sacred"
giving =/= "sacred"
favorable =/= "sacred"
treatment =/= "sacred"
to =/= "sacred"
relationships =/= "sacred"
that =/= "sacred"
can =/= "sacred"
ensure =/= "sacred"
procreation =/= "sacred"
then =/= "sacred"
it's =/= "sacred"
not =/= "sacred"
legally =/= "sacred"
about =/= "sacred"
anything. =/= "sacred"

So, other than being 100% wrong in your assertion you're doing fine. Stick with accusations of closeted homosexuality and venom - those are wormier positions for you and easier to duck into.

So, anyway, I'm curious. Did you expect me to have ANY positive things to say about gay marriage at all? Were you surprised with even my light acknowledgment of a couple of relative positives? Or did you expect a venomous closeted homo bigot to also see some of the other side of the current argument?

-dale

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

Not surprising because the judge is gay. What would you expect?

Irregardless, laws like prop-8 are in direct violation of the 14th amendment. There is no difference between it, the jim crow laws, and the laws restricting women from voting. The only basis for them is bigotry. Nobody has a right to deny their fellow citizen of the same rights they have just because they weren't born different from the dominent group.

Originally Posted by dalem

Yes, my words.

If =/= "sacred"
it's =/= "sacred"
not =/= "sacred"
legally =/= "sacred"
about =/= "sacred"
giving =/= "sacred"
favorable =/= "sacred"
treatment =/= "sacred"
to =/= "sacred"
relationships =/= "sacred"
that =/= "sacred"
can =/= "sacred"
ensure =/= "sacred"
procreation =/= "sacred"
then =/= "sacred"
it's =/= "sacred"
not =/= "sacred"
legally =/= "sacred"
about =/= "sacred"
anything. =/= "sacred"

So, other than being 100% wrong in your assertion you're doing fine. Stick with accusations of closeted homosexuality and venom - those are wormier positions for you and easier to duck into.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suite is it?

So, anyway, I'm curious. Did you expect me to have ANY positive things to say about gay marriage at all? Were you surprised with even my light acknowledgment of a couple of relative positives? Or did you expect a venomous closeted homo bigot to also see some of the other side of the current argument?

-dale

Your positive comment was fake because at the end of the day you still favor a bigoted policy of exclusion based on sexual orientation. You think it will cost society but have not offered up any proof of your claims. Fact is from states where gay marriage is legal there does not seem to be any negatives for society.

You claim you'd rather have 2 parents than 1 parent but still would vote to keep gay couples from marrying meaning in effect you chose single parents over dual parents. Then you argue from a false tradition of marriage being sacred which it most assuredly is not, not in modern America. Hetros have made marriage a joke.