CA Prop. 8 shot down

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
WinterBorn said:
And what about a lesbian couple if one gets pregnant via artificial insemination? Won't they fit the "procreation" model as well as straight couples who divorce and remarry someone else?
Click to expand...

Straight couple who remarries has the potential of procreation, the lesbian couple does not. And if a married lesbian becomes pregnant, her lesbian lover has no relation to the child. No obligation to suport the child. Whereas the remarried husbands wife were to become pregnant, he is obligated to support those children.
Marriage ONLY creates paternal rights and obligations in the case of a man married to a woman. Gays want all the goodies that go along with marriage without ever being subjected to the parental obligations to children created by marriage between heterosexuals.
 
dixon76710 said:
Straight couple who remarries has the potential of procreation, the lesbian couple does not. And if a married lesbian becomes pregnant, her lesbian lover has no relation to the child. No obligation to suport the child. Whereas the remarried husbands wife were to become pregnant, he is obligated to support those children.
Marriage ONLY creates paternal rights and obligations in the case of a man married to a woman. Gays want all the goodies that go along with marriage without ever being subjected to the parental obligations created by marriage between heterosexuals.
Click to expand...

Oh, so the gov't gives benefits because there is a CHANCE of procreation, but doesn't withhold the benefits when there is no chance of procreation in a straight couple. But it does withhold the benefits from gay couples when there is no chance of procreation, and even does so when there is procreation because one of the parents has no biological ties to the child?

That is some pretty convoluted rationalization there.

And the last line about wanting the goodies without the responsibilities? That is the fault of the system that does not allow them to marry and have BOTH members of the relationship be the legal parents of the child.

You see, if one person adopts a child, the only way another person can be listed as a legal parent is if those two parents are married. So your convoluted rationalization is the reason that gays do not gain the added responsibilities of parenthood.

And studies have shown time and again that children raised by gay parents are the same as children raised by straight parents.




So if, as you claim, the gov't sanctions & rewards marriage strictly because of procreation, then those gays who procreate (or adopt) should be allowed to marry. And those straight couples who cannot procreate (and do not adopt) should not receive those benefits.

Or is there some reason we shouldn't do that?
 
dixon76710 said:
Nobody has ever suggested that the single mother and grandmother, or ANY OTHER closely related couple engaged in sexual relations with each other and 3 or 4 times I specifically pointed out that they did not. Aaaaand of course thats exactly why you run there. Ill wait here while you slay that strawman.
Click to expand...

God you're stupid. The laws against mothers and daughters marrying are incest laws. Period.

Extending full civil rights to gays has zero to do with incest laws. Mothers are no more allowed to marry daughters than fathers are. Again, nothing to do with gay and straight couples.

You're creating very stupid diversions. These work for you with some people?
 
WinterBorn said:
If this is the best you have to offer, then please sit quietly and let the grownups discuss the actual issue.
Click to expand...

Why do lefties always need to have jokes explained to them? You guys have it backwards. You laugh at the serious stuff and you don't get the joke on the stupid stuff.
 
WinterBorn said:
Second of all, your comment as to how it fits shows you are still fixated on the sexual aspect and ignoring the emotional aspect of these relationships.
Click to expand...

Precisely the opposite. Ive pointed out repeatedly that platonic couples and closely related couples can have close, emotionally intimate" relationships and the gay rights crowd rushes in to point out they dont have sex. They dont have "romantic love". Except nobody has put forward a legitimate governmental interest that is only served in the case of couples with "romantic love", that wouldnt equally be served in the case of couples with emotional intimacy.
 
WinterBorn said:
Oh, so the gov't gives benefits because there is a CHANCE of procreation, but doesn't withhold the benefits when there is no chance of procreation in a straight couple. But it does withhold the benefits from gay couples when there is no chance of procreation, and even does so when there is procreation because one of the parents has no biological ties to the child?
Click to expand...

Yeah, because a third party, outside of the gay couple has biological ties to the child. If a married lesbian woman, strays to the heterosexual side, gets knocked up by some guy at the bar and gives birth to a child, his paternal rights and obligations arent going to be severed and given over to a lesbian lover who has no relation to the child whatsoever.
 
Alias said:
A guy in Seattle made love to his horse. Now he is not allowed to make an honest woman out of her, you bigots.
Click to expand...

You mean an honest "mare". And any resulting chimera will be bastards. It's not only be a crime against humanity but also a crime against equidae-ity.
 
Alias said:
You're not getting it. A man and a woman fit together anatomically and naturally. We are talking about REAL marriage, not artificial and perverted.
Click to expand...

Uh, FU. The only one perverted is you. Not all heterosexual unions result in procreation, you dumb dora. Marriage is between 2 adults, unrelated closely, that desire to spend their lives together. And there is nothing perverted about that.
 
dixon76710 said:
And the laws limiting marriage to opposite sex couples are marriage laws, period.
Click to expand...

Nope, no period there.

Those laws are being overturned and superseded in this country, in an expansion of civil rights. Civil rights in America have always been expanded as people have become more enlightened, so have our laws. Usually after a long struggle and battle on the part of the disenfranchised. It happened with white males who weren't land-owners, it happened with women, it happened with blacks. That's part of what makes America great. And now it's happening again. And just as with all of those battles, there are some who fight and struggle against modernity and enlightment and instead, choose to embrace bigotry and hate. But they've always been found irrelevant by history. Just how it shakes out for you guys. Oh well.
 
I admire the staying power of those that continue to debate this with Alias and his ilk. I am glad I get away from this on the weekends. Bashing my head against a wall of bigots like Alias 7 days a week would get old fast.
 
poet said:
Uh, FU. The only one perverted is you. Not all heterosexual unions result in procreation, you dumb dora. Marriage is between 2 adults, unrelated closely, that desire to spend their lives together. And there is nothing perverted about that.
Click to expand...

So says the queer "Christian" who denies the words of Jesus. You have no credibility.

wolf_in_sheeps_clothing1.jpg
 
Alias said:
So says the queer "Christian" who denies the words of Jesus. You have no credibility.
Click to expand...

No one has denied the words of Jesus. But I'm not about to sit here, and allow you to twist them into something he didn't mean. And your mama and daddy are queer. I'm gay.
And the word "credibility" is one that you should avoid at all costs. You could spontaneous combust, using it.
 
dixon76710 said:
Yeah, because a third party, outside of the gay couple has biological ties to the child. If a married lesbian woman, strays to the heterosexual side, gets knocked up by some guy at the bar and gives birth to a child, his paternal rights and obligations arent going to be severed and given over to a lesbian lover who has no relation to the child whatsoever.
Click to expand...

The third party would have no legal ties to the child, especially if they get the sperm from a sperm bank.

As for the lesbian who gets knocked up, why wouldn't the parental rights be given to the lesbian partner? If a straight couple divorces and one of the parents is willing to relinquish their parents rights, the "step-parent" can adopt the child and become its legal parent.

Biological ties are meaningless if adoption is involved.
 
Superfreak said:
I admire the staying power of those that continue to debate this with Alias and his ilk. I am glad I get away from this on the weekends. Bashing my head against a wall of bigots like Alias 7 days a week would get old fast.
Click to expand...

Oh, for sure. Must be hard to live in a nation that all of a sudden finds itself infested with all these bigots. Gee, where did they all come from?

You little asswipes can't have everything you want so you whine and call people bigots, racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, promoters of hate speech, etc, etc. People are turning you little miscreants off.
 
Darla said:
Nope, no period there.

Those laws are being overturned and superseded in this country, in an expansion of civil rights.
Click to expand...

Some of the Euopean countries who have had gay marriage the longest, are seeing 1/2 of 1% of all marriages as same sex marriages. This is a barely peceptable expansion of privilidges to accomodate a tiny minority, to the exclusion of others. But they dont matter because they dont rub genitals like the gays do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top