CA Prop. 8 shot down

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
WinterBorn said:
Because marriage is about two people committing to one another in a relationship based on love. The idea that two people does so just for benefits is a bogus argument.

Its not about rubbing genitalia together any more than it is about kids. It is about the two people.
Click to expand...

You confuse two separate issues. Why people choose to marry and why the government chooses to license and regulate the relationship.
 
Last edited:
dixon76710 said:
???? well, first, any two consenting adults could adopt, does nothing for your argument of extending marriage to two consenting adults when they happen to be gay. Second, while heterosexual sex has a natural tendency to lead to procreation, homosexual sex has no such tendency to lead to adoption. And third, the most frequent alternative to being born into a home with the benefit of both their mother and father present to provide and care for them is usually being born into a home with just the single mother present to provide and care for the child. Other alternatives include orphanages, foster care, being raised by other members of the extended family and only a small minority involve adoption of the child by another adult.
Click to expand...

And by allowing gays to marry, we would increase the number of suitable homes for children to be adopted into. Especially since there are states that do not allow gays or single people to adopt.
 
dixon76710 said:
You confuse two separate issues. Why people choose to marry and why the government chooses to license and regulate the relationship.
Click to expand...

Since the gov't allows divorce for infidelity and for alienation of affection, the reasons for ending marriages seem to be based on the concept that marriage is a committed, loving relationship.
 
WinterBorn said:
And by allowing gays to marry, we would increase the number of suitable homes for children to be adopted into. Especially since there are states that do not allow gays or single people to adopt.
Click to expand...

Poor single fathers never get mentioned...
 
Last edited:
WinterBorn said:
And by allowing gays to marry, we would increase the number of suitable homes for children to be adopted into. Especially since there are states that do not allow gays or single people to adopt.
Click to expand...

Allowing any two consenting adults to marry, we would increase the number of suitable homes for children to be adopted into. Nothing special about the consenting adults who happen to be gay, that would warrant such special treatment. Being freakin gay doesnt qualify one as a parent.
 
WinterBorn said:
Since the gov't allows divorce for infidelity and for alienation of affection, the reasons for ending marriages seem to be based on the concept that marriage is a committed, loving relationship.
Click to expand...

Any two consenting adults can have a committed loving relationship. Nothing special about those who happen top be gay.
 
dixon76710 said:
Allowing any two consenting adults to marry, we would increase the number of suitable homes for children to be adopted into. Nothing special about the consenting adults who happen to be gay, that would warrant such special treatment. Being freakin gay doesnt qualify one as a parent.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't disqualify one, either, neither should being single. If a person or persons is found fit to raise a child, they should be allowed to do so.
 
dixon76710 said:
Any two consenting adults can have a committed loving relationship. Nothing special about those who happen top be gay.
Click to expand...

And since they can contribute in all the same ways to society, the gov't should recognize those relationships just as they do heterosexual marriages.

Dixon, you have talked at length about children being the reason for the gov't recognizing marriages. Can you think of any negative impact gay marriage would have on our society?
 
Rana said:
It shouldn't disqualify one, either, neither should being single. If a person or persons is found fit to raise a child, they should be allowed to do so.
Click to expand...

And again, what does any of that have to do with

WinterBorn said:
...allowing gays to marry,
Click to expand...
?

Yes, if the two people, the mother and father, dont provide and care for the child, people other than the biological parents can adopt the child. The gay ones arent somehow more qualified than any of the others who are not gay.
 
dixon76710 said:
And again, what does any of that have to do with

?

Yes, if the two people, the mother and father, dont provide and care for the child, people other than the biological parents can adopt the child. The gay ones arent somehow more qualified than any of the others who are not gay.
Click to expand...

Nor are they less qualified.

I see you dodged my question.
 
Dixon, you have said you haven't claimed gays shouldn't marry because they cannot have children, and that you have not claimed gays are less qualified to raise children, or that bearing children is the reason for marriage.

You seem to be opposed to gay marriage but you have not really stated why gays should not marry.
 
Why does anybody believe that the government should sanction or devalue our personal lives to this level?
 
WinterBorn said:
Can you think of any negative impact gay marriage would have on our society?
Click to expand...

I cant think of any negative impact of marriage between any two consenting adults on our society. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay.
Government encourages and subsidizes behavior because it provides a benefit to society as a whole. In the case of marriage, more children born into homes with both their mother and father present to provide and care for them and fewer born into the alternative with only one or none of their parents present. Encouraging and subsidizing behavior because it has no "negative impact" doesnt make much sense. But no more so in the case of a couple made up of ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. Ones sexuality has no relevance to the formation of stable households. As an adult, I lived in the same household with my wife for two years. Same household with my brother for 4 years. Same household with a lifetime, platonic friend for 6 years. What possible, legitimate governmental interest would only be served if I were to form another household with a second wife or with a new homosexual boyfriend, that wouldnt also be served in the case of a platonic friend, or a closely related family member?

Every argument anybody has presented in support of gay marriage, works equally well in the case of marriage between closely related couples or platonic friends. ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS And yet everybody screams for gay marriage.
 
dixon76710 said:
Allowing any two consenting adults to marry, we would increase the number of suitable homes for children to be adopted into. Nothing special about the consenting adults who happen to be gay, that would warrant such special treatment. Being freakin gay doesnt qualify one as a parent.
Click to expand...

It also doesn't disqualify, so what's your point?
 
dixon76710 said:
I cant think of any negative impact of marriage between any two consenting adults on our society. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay.
Government encourages and subsidizes behavior because it provides a benefit to society as a whole. In the case of marriage, more children born into homes with both their mother and father present to provide and care for them and fewer born into the alternative with only one or none of their parents present. Encouraging and subsidizing behavior because it has no "negative impact" doesnt make much sense. But no more so in the case of a couple made up of ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. Ones sexuality has no relevance to the formation of stable households. As an adult, I lived in the same household with my wife for two years. Same household with my brother for 4 years. Same household with a lifetime, platonic friend for 6 years. What possible, legitimate governmental interest would only be served if I were to form another household with a second wife or with a new homosexual boyfriend, that wouldnt also be served in the case of a platonic friend, or a closely related family member?

Every argument anybody has presented in support of gay marriage, works equally well in the case of marriage between closely related couples or platonic friends. ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS And yet everybody screams for gay marriage.
Click to expand...

You still don't get it.
The marriage isn't for the "benefit" of the Government or for society; the marriage is for the benefit of two people who love one another and want to spend their lives together. This also allows them to be able to speak for one another, in medical cases, and allows them to pass on to the survivor what they've acquired throughout their lifetime; without having to go through the extra time and expense, that hetrosexual married couples don't have to, to pursue those legal rights.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You still don't get it.
The marriage isn't for the "benefit" of the Government or for society; the marriage is for the benefit of two people who love one another and want to spend their lives together. This also allows them to be able to speak for one another, in medical cases, and allows them to pass on to the survivor what they've acquired throughout their lifetime; without having to go through the extra time and expense, that hetrosexual married couples don't have to, to pursue those legal rights.
Click to expand...

Nice answer, I agree.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You still don't get it.
The marriage isn't for the "benefit" of the Government or for society; the marriage is for the benefit of two people who love one another and want to spend their lives together. This also allows them to be able to speak for one another, in medical cases, and allows them to pass on to the survivor what they've acquired throughout their lifetime; without having to go through the extra time and expense, that hetrosexual married couples don't have to, to pursue those legal rights.
Click to expand...

I get that just fine. What you dont get is that ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS can love one another and spend their lives together and benefit from all of these things. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay that would warrant such special treatment.
 
WinterBorn said:
And since they can contribute in all the same ways to society, the gov't should recognize those relationships just as they do heterosexual marriages.

Dixon, you have talked at length about children being the reason for the gov't recognizing marriages. Can you think of any negative impact gay marriage would have on our society?
Click to expand...

I think the government recognizes marriage for legal and taxation purposes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top