CA Prop. 8 shot down

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
dixon76710 said:
Governments purpose in encouraging marriage is to increase the number of children born into homes with the benefit of both their mother and father present to provide and care for them, as opposed to the alternative of one or neither of their parents present to do so. If you want to give those benefits to two gay guys who rub genitals, you really have no justification for denying the benefits to any two people who would desire those benefits. Nothing special about being homosexual, that would justify such discriminatory treatment. Society, culture, tradition, religion and law hasnt encouraged men and women to marry, for as long as human civilization has existed, because men and women have sex. They have instead done so, because when men and women have sex, children are frequently the result. Two guys doing each other in the butt, never going to happen. From BC Roman law

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")

as it is today

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY.
(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;....

None of this has any applicability to two people of the same sex because,

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
Click to expand...

Back in the day when having children was encouraged and children born out of wedlock were shunned socially, that may have been relevant.

But the gov't also issues marriage licences to straights who cannot have children. If two senior citizens wish to marry, they get all the benefits of the institution without any chance of having children. A man in a wheelchair, a woman who has had a hystorectomy, and people who have been sterilized thru elective surgery are all given the benefits of marriage. So the whole child bearing issue cannot be the reason for denying marriage.
 
bravo said:
All that, and anything else can be accomplished by a simple contract (agreement) between the homo's....but thats not what the homo's want,.....they want to destroy the present definition of marriage that has endured from early civilization....


Homo's have the same rights as everyone else......no one can 'marry', an underage child, a person of the same sex, or an animal......

We all live by the same rules right now.....the same rights.....
Click to expand...

There are up to 1,400 benefits (federal, state and local) that is bestowed upon a couple by getting married. Some of those cannot be done by private contract, such as adopted children staying with the surviving spouse. The rest may or may not be able to be done by a lawyer and a contract. But isn't that evidence that they are treated unfairly? One couple can get all the benefits by getting married and the other couple has to spend thousands of dollars and untold hours with lawyers to gain the same thing, all because people are squeamish about what they do in the privacy of their own home?
 
dixon76710 said:
Its like you didnt understand a single word you read. Not because they are sexual, not because they are heterosexual, but instead because they are the biological parents of the child. Likely some evolutionary adaptation. Primate species where the females copulate with many different males, those fathers generally have no role in the raising of the offspring. In species where the females copulate with one male, those fathers generally do take a role in caring for the offspring.

We seem to be quickly enough evolving to resemble bonobo chimps where sex is with many different partners of both sexes, and the caring for offspring is solely the domain of females. No need for government to try and hasten that evolution.
Click to expand...

Are you attempting to make an assertion that I was a better father to the two children that I am the biological parent of, then I was to the three children that I wasn't the biological father of; because my wife and I raised all three of them, with the same love and affection?
 
Alias said:
Oh, for sure. So was Jesus. Jesus said this....."And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Click to expand...

And yet, the gov't can grant divorces. Its a wonder God doesn't smite them all. Oh yeah, the hurricanes, earthquakes and tornados are all proof God smites us.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And this will be challanged and changed, just as the inter-racial marriages were challanged and changed.
Two males or two females getting married, does nothing to denigrate my marriage of going on to 35 years.
What would denigrate my marriage are things that me or my wife would do, to make our marriage less then what it is.
Click to expand...


Those opposing gay marriage, please take note. These could have just as easily been written by Rana, Darla or Oncelor. If you look thru the thread you see both liberals and conservatives arguing FOR gay marriage.

Well said, USF.
 
Alias said:
I never claimed blacks could not marry whites. Your stereotype isn't gonna work. My family is very racially mixed. Try again.

Your skin color is something you are born with. Being queer is a choice. Like an alcoholic taking a drink. It's a choice made by your desires.
Click to expand...


Please tell us when you decided to be straight? Please tell us when you decided that you could only feel romantic love for women? When did you make that choice?
 
WinterBorn said:
And yet, the gov't can grant divorces. Its a wonder God doesn't smite them all. Oh yeah, the hurricanes, earthquakes and tornados are all proof God smites us.
Click to expand...

Jesus allowed for divorce. Adultery. Also, divorce can be forgiven in Christianity. It's not the unpardonable sin.
 
WinterBorn said:
Please tell us when you decided to be straight? Please tell us when you decided that you could only feel romantic love for women? When did you make that choice?
Click to expand...

When I got a hard on looking at the Playboy magazine under my dad's chair. I think I was about 9.

I also remember my first sexual experience. I was about 14 or 15. I was under my blanket with a tiny penlight and my Dad's Playboy magazine. It was dark and I was scared.
 
bravo said:
Definitions are definitions, 2 years ago, 200 years or 2000 years ago....

Thats not the point.....What they claim they want can be done without changing the definition of marriage.....
Click to expand...

If a lesbian adopts a child, and she and her partner raise it as their own, then that lesbian dies, her partner has no rights to continue to raise that child. And there is no contract that can remedy that if some busybody, holyroller decides to raise a fuss.
 
Darla said:
Do you know nothing about the tyranny of the majority and the rights of the minority????
Click to expand...
you are barking up the wrong frickin tree little girl. i'm a big believer in ensuring the rights of the minority are not trampled by the majority. i'm also of the mindset that constitutions, whether state or federal, should only be amended to restrict government, not the people. If you didn't understand my point, you can simply ask me to clarify.
 
WinterBorn said:
If a lesbian adopts a child, and she and her partner raise it as their own, then that lesbian dies, her partner has no rights to continue to raise that child. And there is no contract that can remedy that if some busybody, holyroller decides to raise a fuss.
Click to expand...

So you're a Christophobic bigot. Nice.
 
Alias said:
No one is being denied the right to marry. You can't marry your sister, you can't marry your mother, and you can't marry someone of the same sex. Now you tell me that being denied the right to marry your sister and mother and someone of the same sex is a civil rights issue? Go for it.
Click to expand...

Incest is a different issue and is banned for very real reasons of potential birth defects of any children.

Tell us again what the reason for gays not being allowed to marry? Not this vague "the definition shouldn't change" nonsense, but a real reason. How would allowing gays to marry effect anyone else?
 
dixon76710 said:
Denial of the tax breaks and governmental entitlements to two guys who do each other in the butt, is no more tyranny than the denial of the same tax breaks and governmental entitlements to the single mother and widowed grandmother down the street from me, who have shared a home, raising the 3 children/grandchildren for 8 years now. Nothing special about being gay. If you want to extend marriage to gays, there really would be no justification for denying it to any two consenting adults seeking a marriage.
Click to expand...

If doing each other in the butt were the sum total of the relationship, I doubt they would be wanting to marry. You need to get passed the idea that it is all about sex. My wife and I married, not because we have sex, but because we love each other and want a committed relationship. It is the same with gays.
 
WinterBorn said:
Incest is a different issue and is banned for very real reasons of potential birth defects of any children.

Tell us again what the reason for gays not being allowed to marry? Not this vague "the definitoon shouldn't change" nonsense, but a real reason. How would allowing gays to marry effect anyone else?
Click to expand...

Because we want to preserve our heritage and our culture. That's why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top