CA Prop. 8 shot down

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Southern Chicken said:
The valid State interest in preventing siblings from marrying is that to allow them to marry would be State endorsement of an illegal act.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL!!! Soooo using your logic a law making marriage to someone of the same sex an illegal act, would fix any constitutional flaw you have with marriages limitation to heterosexual couples. Silly argument.

Southern Chicken said:
Until the incest laws change to allow siblings to legally have sex, they will never be allowed to marry.
Click to expand...

What are you going on about? Grandmother and mother down the street dont have sex with each other. My brother and I certainly dont have sex with each other. You whine on about the right to choose, and then turn right around and want to restrict them to choosing according to their sexual orientation???? You make no sense.

Distinctions drawn in the law, at a minimum, must be rationally related to serving SOME legitimate governmental interest. Your distinction limits marriage to those who choose according to their sexual orientation, while excluding those who do not choose according to their sexual orientation. What purpose are you serving and how is choice according to ones sexual orientation related to serving that purpose?
 
dixon76710 said:
LOLOLOL!!! Soooo using your logic a law making marriage to someone of the same sex an illegal act, would fix any constitutional flaw you have with marriages limitation to heterosexual couples. Silly argument.
Click to expand...


"a law making marriage to someone of the same sex an illegal act"--YOu mean like it was during the old Sodomy laws.

BUT the High Courts Repealed Sodomy Laws---

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv...ws-history-and-strategy-led-lawrence-decision

HOWEVER, There are STILL laws concerning INCEST making the act illegal...

Repeat---The valid State interest in preventing siblings from marrying is that to allow them to marry would be State endorsement of an illegal act.(via the current incest laws)

WHAT IS SOO HARD TO UNDERSTAND BY that?
 
Southern Chicken said:
"a law making marriage to someone of the same sex an illegal act"--YOu mean like it was during the old Sodomy laws.

BUT the High Courts Repealed Sodomy Laws---
Click to expand...

No, CLEARLY I meant what I said, "a law making marriage to someone of the same sex an illegal act". Just like some states make marriage between someone of the same sex a crime. Some states only make sex between closely related people a crime. Some make both a crime and some neither are a crime. Anyway, silly logic because if true, a state would only need to make marriage between someone of the same sex a crime, and every constituional flaw you have imagined would disappear.
 
Alias said:
Lefty logic. The manipulation needed to arrive at the goal of the agenda is always fun to watch.
Click to expand...

Have you read the gay Judge Walkers decision? The tortured logic and testimony from a feminist, harvard history professor who isnt even suportive of marriage for heterosexuals, painting the instituion of marriage as unrelated to procreation and purely a tool used by men to subjugate women?

"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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

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")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_semper_certa_est

This isnt subjugation of women. Its biology. Laws that made wives property of their husbands, laws that permitted husbands to whip their wives with a stick no thicker than his thumb were about subjugation of women. But society, tradition, culture, law and religion hasnt encouraged heterosexual couples to marry since the dawn of civilization in order to subjugate women and has instead done so because heterosexual couples procreate.
Men have subjugated women because we are larger and have more muscle mass. See it in the animal kingdom all the time.
 
dixon76710 said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Personally, I could care less about what adults do...it's this nonsense about raising kids to prove "equality" or "normality" that I disagree to. But since there's no federal law passed that bans gay couples from adopting or "having" children through artificial insemination/surrogacy or via divorce, society will have to play out that card.
Click to expand...
Why? Any two people could adopt a child. Why the special treatment for two people who happen to be gay? Its not like being gay is equally beneficial to children as biological parents, requiring the same preference.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but you forget that it was less than 40 years ago that many states started to strike down the laws that made it illegal for gays to adopt. One of the driving forces behind that (aside from the grass root political pressure) was the overload in the foster child system.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Ahhh, but you forget that it was less than 40 years ago that many states started to strike down the laws that made it illegal for gays to adopt. One of the driving forces behind that (aside from the grass root political pressure) was the overload in the foster child system.
Click to expand...

Not sure of your point. Any two people could adopt a child. Two platonic friends, two closely related adults. Two 18 yr old boys with boners arent some how more qualified to adopt and raise children than two platonic friends or two closely related adults. What possible justification could government have for giving the gay boys with boners family model preference over ANY OTHER POSSIBLE COMBINATION OF TWO CONSENTING ADULTS who could adopt a child? ESPECIALLY since its a preference for both biological parents raising THEIR own children that you find unacceptable.

And while heterosexual sex has a strong tendency to naturally lead to procreation, homosexual sex has no such tendency whatsoever to lead to adoption. Silly to argue we cant encourage all heterosexual couples to marry in case they procreate while arguing that WE MUST encourage all homosexuals to marry in case they might want to adopt.
 
dixon76710 said:
Personally, I think the preference for mothers and fathers providing and caring for the children they create together as opposed to not doing so serves a worthy and beneficial purpose to society. It would really be a shame if we were forced to abandon this institution as old as civilization itself, ALL for no other reason than it offends the tiny minority of gays who biologically cannot participate in the process.
Click to expand...

This "discussion" has been going on for days now and I have yet to see you post anything that shows that gays marrying would be detrimental to you, in any way.

Here are just some the "rights" that gays will be able to have, when they are allowed to marry:
1. joint parenting;
2. joint adoption;
3. joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
4. status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
5. joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
6. dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
7. immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
8. inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
9. joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
10. inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
11. benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
12. spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
13. veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
14. joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
15. wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
16. bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
17. decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
18. crime victims' recovery benefits;
19. loss of consortium tort benefits;
20. domestic violence protection orders;
21. judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

Now how about showing one thing that would denigrate heterosexual marriage.
 
dixon76710 said:
Personally, I think the preference for mothers and fathers providing and caring for the children they create together as opposed to not doing so serves a worthy and beneficial purpose to society. It would really be a shame if we were forced to abandon this institution as old as civilization itself, ALL for no other reason than it offends the tiny minority of gays who biologically cannot participate in the process.
Click to expand...

Where in the world did you get the idea that gay marriage was going to do away with the "institution" of anything that has to do with heterosexual marriage?
 
Alias said:
Lefty logic. The manipulation needed to arrive at the goal of the agenda is always fun to watch.
Click to expand...

What's even more fun, is watching you spin in circles; while you try to defend your lack of logic and your stonewall attempts to defend something that is archaic.
 
Jarod said:
I hate to agree with Alias, but sexual intercorse is one of many types of sexual acts. Masterbating is a sexual act, yet its not what I would consider intercorse.
Click to expand...

Several months ago was over at a friends house. She overheard her 8th grade daughter and two visiting friends make mention of "handies" and ended up in the akward position of listening to a half hour debate between the three girls against mom, that "handies" or "blows" isnt having "sex" with a guy. I shit you not, and I dont blame him, but these 8th grade girls all used Clinton in their argument. They would of been like 2 yrs old when that happened. Suprised they even knew of the incident. Do they cover that in Social Studies these days?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
What's even more fun, is watching you spin in circles; while you try to defend your lack of logic and your stonewall attempts to defend something that is archaic.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt consider mothers and fathers raising the children they have created in nuclear families to be archaic. But I worry that we are moving towards the day where that will be true. We are primates with big balls. It is our nature for males to have sex with many women, and women have sex with many males. Our monagamy I believe is purely cultural influences. Absent societies morality, human sexuality would probably more closely resemble that of bonobo chimps, where sex is frequent, with many differnt partners of both sexes, and the providing and care of children is purely the domain of women and government programs.
 
dixon76710 said:
I wouldnt consider mothers and fathers raising the children they have created in nuclear families to be archaic. But I worry that we are moving towards the day where that will be true. We are primates with big balls. It is our nature for males to have sex with many women, and women have sex with many males. Our monagamy I believe is purely cultural influences. Absent societies morality, human sexuality would probably more closely resemble that of bonobo chimps, where sex is frequent, with many differnt partners of both sexes, and the providing and care of children is purely the domain of women and government programs.
Click to expand...

This doesn't mean that the Government should have anything to do with anyone's family; unless they request it or it becomes necessary.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Then what is your complaint.
If two gay people are in love and VOLUNTARILY decide to join in marriage, how does it affect your marriage?
Click to expand...

I have asked this question repeatedly for several years and never gotten a real answer. A couple of people have moaned about defiling the sanctity of marriage, but offered no real answer.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Then what is your complaint.
If two gay people are in love and VOLUNTARILY decide to join in marriage, how does it affect your marriage?
Click to expand...

Im not married but we dont give out tax breaks and governmental entitlements because they have no effect upon others but do so instead because it provides a benefit to the wider society. AND, of course, marriage between ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS would not have an effect upon others marriages, so your evidence does nothing for your arguments specific to those couples who happen to be "gay"
 
dixon76710 said:
I have given an answer repeatedly
Click to expand...

Yes yes, its all about children having 2 biological parents. Except you don't wantto outlaw divorce, and you give the same benefits to people who know they cannot have children. In otherwords, a bogus answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top