USA Today - California's Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

[Larry]

Why does it matter?

Because a liar is claiming that he's opposed to granting equal rights to a disliked minorities, and claiming that "they can't have children" is his justification.

When the obvious fact is that he doesn't give a Philly about whether a couple can or will, or intends to, have children. He cares about sticking it to gays. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, if that's what you're into. )

And he's invented this entire inflated puffery to try to claim that "must have kids" is the "definition" of marriage. When it never has been. And trying to paint his bigotry as him nobly defending a definition from the evil hoards who are trying to change it.

He's attempting to make himself look noble, by accusing other people of what he, himself, is obviously doing.

[Smoot Point Really]

Because a liar is claiming that he's opposed to granting equal rights to a disliked minorities, and claiming that "they can't have children" is his justification.

You have no justification for your own ideas, so you have to stoop to calling people liars and bigots...

Also, I never said "must have kids" is the definition of marriage. Certainly, the biological impossibility (2 men, 2 women, man & beast, man & boat, etc) would not meet the historical/cultural definition of the sacrament of marriage.

[Larry]

You have no justification for your own ideas, so you have to stoop to calling people liars and bigots...

My "idea" is "anybody who claims he opposed to gay marriage because they can't have kids is a liar".

And I've proven it.

Your own position is:

Gays who can't have kids: Absolutely must be prevented from marriage, or they will destroy it.

Anybody else who can't have kids: Sure, no problem. Fine with me.

[jb4348]

My "idea" is "anybody who claims he opposed to gay marriage because they can't have kids is a liar".

And I've proven it.

Your own position is:

Gays who can't have kids: Absolutely must be prevented from marriage, or they will destroy it.

Anybody else who can't have kids: Sure, no problem. Fine with me.

Thats what I am getting out out of his comments as well.

[twa]

What I get out of it is he sees reproduction and raising children as the main driver for marriage as a historical institution in society.....and I do as well.

There are some interesting studies on it's impacts during the development of civilization and how it contributed to it.

Is he opposed for that reason or simply does not see the same need?

[Larry]

Oh, if you want to claim that "the vast majority of people who get married, do so with the intent of raising children. And this statement has been true throughout human history.", then I'd wholeheartedly agree with you.

And that statement will still be true if gays are permitted to marry.

(It will be even more true, once gay married couples begin adopting children. We all know that that fight's coming, too.)

My problem occurs when that statement turns into "We must, by all means, immediately amend the Constitution of every jurisdiction in the Universe, to prevent gay people who can't conceive children from getting married. (But other people who can't conceive children are still welcome.)"

(I also think it's time for this:)

[twa]

Oh, if you want to claim that "the vast majority of people who get married, do so with the intent of raising children. And this statement has been true throughout human history.", then I'd wholeheartedly agree with you.

And that statement will still be true if gays are permitted to marry.

(It will be even more true, once gay married couples begin adopting children. We all know that that fight's coming, too.)

That's a different tune than you started with.

"And if marriage had anything to do with procreation, you'd have a point.

But it doesn't."...sound familiar?

Perhaps ya'll both are simply not making yourself clear?

Adoption imo would benefit from the changing of terminology as well and put the focus on what is best for the kids...which is where it should be.

[skinfan133]

Adoption, now that it has been brought up, is a really interesting issue for me, one that I haven't fully made up my mind about. I think at this point in my thinking though I would be against gay spouses adopting children. Adopting a child is not an inalienable right. It's a privilege contingent upon how good a couple would be as parents. Now, I'll be honest, I have no idea how having two gay parents affects the development of a child, if it does at all. However, my intuition at the moment would say that it would be abnormal for the child, especially for an older child, say 7 to 12 or so. And again, that's just me totally pulling that out of my ass, so take it for what it's worth.

We also have to take into account how starved for good foster homes our child services are these days. Capable and loving homes are not in abundance at this time. If gays make good parents at just the same rate as hetero spouses, I say inject the system with more loving homes. But I want it firmly established first that a child's development would not be hindered by being raised by two parents of the same sex. We see all the time the issues people encounter later in life when a father figure or a nurturing mother isn't present in a child's life.

and I don't even want to get into issues of one gay parent biologically related to a child and one isn't and so forth, that question can be settled once the adoption issue is settled. For the record though, I would be much more favorable today to granting custody to the other partner as well if one of the spouses is biologically related. :2cents:

[Smoot Point Really]

My "idea" is "anybody who claims he opposed to gay marriage because they can't have kids is a liar".

And I've proven it.

Your own position is:

Gays who can't have kids: Absolutely must be prevented from marriage, or they will destroy it.

Anybody else who can't have kids: Sure, no problem. Fine with me.

No... I haven't said anything remotely like that. Why don't you use my actual quotes?

You have called me a liar and a bigot... I don't see how you get away with that.

[twa]

If marriage is a inalienable right for all then we need a set national age...can't leave that to the states....then we can go on to polygamy and familial restrictions.

Adoption I don't have a problem with(though a hetero couple should be at the top of the scale) and it is much more a matter of measuring a individual couples

suitability/ability than as a group.

[Smoot Point Really]

Oh, if you want to claim that "the vast majority of people who get married, do so with the intent of raising children. And this statement has been true throughout human history.", then I'd wholeheartedly agree with you.

I'm willing to bet that you will have a difficult time finding a traditional religious wedding ceremony that doesn't reference children as an anticipated outcome of the marriage.

I've mentioned this already... I'm talking about reality, not feelings... You seem insulted? I've never said homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals... I've only said the language should only be used in Church. I know people who got "married" at the justice of the peace... That isn't really marriage by definition either. Obviously, if a traditional Church decided to "marry" homosexuals, they would have to either modify the words or interpretation of the ceremony.

Just use a different word... There isn't a good reason not to.

[Burgold]

I think he has a good point about heterosexual marriage if one or both partners are infertile or if they are both senior citizens. Should sterile people be precluded from the ability to get married? How about people with erectile dysfunction?

[Smoot Point Really]

I think he has a good point about heterosexual marriage if one or both partners are infertile or if they are both senior citizens. Should sterile people be precluded from the ability to get married? How about people with erectile dysfunction?

There are many examples in Judeo-Christian tradition where the married couple was not able to have children until much later... Abraham/Sarah... Anna (Mother of the Virgin Mary)... Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist)... Miracles happen.

I think it would be a bit much to ask for this type of "miracle" to occur between two men... Two women.. A man & a dog... Etc... You get the point.

[twa]

I think he has a good point about heterosexual marriage if one or both partners are infertile or if they are both senior citizens. Should sterile people be precluded from the ability to get married? How about people with erectile dysfunction?

That would be singling out a individual or group out of a already established one.

rather difficult to determine those conditions(aside from age) in advance and that it is not reversible.

Strangely enough I believe marriages have been annulled over those factors...why would that be?[sOUND][/sOUND]

SSM is not the norm...adding them is no more radical change than a attempt to exclude those you list.

[Burgold]

I think it would be a bit much to ask for this type of "miracle" to occur between two men... Two women.. A man & a dog... Etc... You get the point.

I don't know.... I've been reading articles about a lot of pregnant "men" in recent years. Certainly, we've gained the ability to implant men... though why a guy would want that I'm not sure.

[Veretax]

All I know is this ruling and this judge if not overturned for the way he ruled, will be the final straw for people to push for a US Constitutional Amendment defining marriage. So don't blame me when you see that stuff start picking up in the coming months.

[skinfan133]

All I know is this ruling and this judge if not overturned for the way he ruled, will be the final straw for people to push for a US Constitutional Amendment defining marriage. So don't blame me when you see that stuff start picking up in the coming months.

absolutely not. That would be a costly move on the part of congress and good luck getting 3/4ths of the states to call conventions. There will be no amendment defining marriage. The Constitution isn't even for those sorts of purposes, and I would vehemently fight any amendment trying to define marriage in the US, no matter what that amendment says.

Even so, I think you overestimate support in the U.S. for criminalizing gay marriage via the Constitution. Even with a Republican majority, congress couldn't even get the process started last time around as the amendment was defeated on the floor.

[twa]

Criminalizing SSM ???? exaggerate much???

You tend towards hyperbole a bit too often.

[Hubbs]

There are many examples in Judeo-Christian tradition where the married couple was not able to have children until much later... Abraham/Sarah... Anna (Mother of the Virgin Mary)... Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist)... Miracles happen.

I think it would be a bit much to ask for this type of "miracle" to occur between two men... Two women.. A man & a dog... Etc... You get the point.

Well, if we're going by miracles, there technically is a theoretical way in which a woman can become pregnant without sperm. It's called parthenogenesis, and it happens in the animal kingdom. Multiple labs have been able to demonstrate that the creation of a human embryo through parthenogenesis is possible.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/03/hwang_parthenogenesis/

The natural creation of a mammalian embryo via parthenogenesis is extremely rare, but it does happen. So far, labs have only been able to induce an actual mammalian birth by manipulating the womb conditions of several mice and, I believe, one rabbit. The "normal" mammalian womb will reject embryos created by parthenogenesis. However, the "normal" mammalian womb can't get pregnant after ovulation has stopped. We're talking miracles here, like magnets. So the one-in-a-trillion chance of the right genetic freak accidents combining to form a human child can't be ruled out.

(And yes, this post was originally inspired by part of an episode of the guy in my signature. However, a few minutes of research allowed me to read what some actual scientists have said about the matter.)

[skinfan133]

Criminalizing SSM ???? exaggerate much???

You tend towards hyperbole a bit too often.

well, would not a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman in the United States effectively criminalize gay marriage?

[Larry]

Your own position is:

Gays who can't have kids: Absolutely must be prevented from marriage, or they will destroy it.

Anybody else who can't have kids: Sure, no problem. Fine with me.

No... I haven't said anything remotely like that. Why don't you use my actual quotes?

Well, here's the one time where you only kind of dodged my question, as opposed to simply pretending that it didn't exist, entirely:

Do you support prohibiting marriage to straight couples who can't (or do not intend to) have children?

To answer your question (though you don't deserve an answer). Yes... It doesn't change the fact that the sacrament is there to bless a union for procreation. If a couple doesn't want children, they can always change their mind. It doesn't matter if homosexuals change their mind or not. Honestly, if people don't want to create children together, there isn't much point in them getting married. However, that doesn't mean they are disqualified from participating in the sacrament.

But please, feel free to clarify your position. I've only been asking for it for about two days, now.

[Larry]

There are many examples in Judeo-Christian tradition where the married couple was not able to have children until much later... Abraham/Sarah... Anna (Mother of the Virgin Mary)... Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist)... Miracles happen.

I think it would be a bit much to ask for this type of "miracle" to occur between two men... Two women.. A man & a dog... Etc... You get the point.

My Grandmother and her Husband were in their 70s.

[Larry]

That would be singling out a individual or group out of a already established one.

No, that would be actually attempting to implement the position that people like to claim they have, to hide their true motives.

They're standing next to a "whites only" drinking fountain, claiming "I don't have a problem with blacks using the drinking fountain, but the very definition of drinking fountain (which I just now cherry picked to fit my agenda) says that drinking fountains are intended for people who don't have big lips. And I'm simply defending the definition (which I just made up) of "non big-lippedness" from being changed to suit a minority group. (oh, BTW, I don't have any problem with white people with big lips using the fountain.)"

[Larry]

All I know is this ruling and this judge if not overturned for the way he ruled, will be the final straw for people to push for a US Constitutional Amendment defining marriage. So don't blame me when you see that stuff start picking up in the coming months.

I won't be surprised in the least if it comes up in the coming months.

The Republican Party has been using that issue to get out the bigot vote for the last 10 years.

absolutely not. That would be a costly move on the part of congress and good luck getting 3/4ths of the states to call conventions. There will be no amendment defining marriage. The Constitution isn't even for those sorts of purposes, and I would vehemently fight any amendment trying to define marriage in the US, no matter what that amendment says.

Even so, I think you overestimate support in the U.S. for criminalizing gay marriage via the Constitution. Even with a Republican majority, congress couldn't even get the process started last time around as the amendment was defeated on the floor.

Oh, of course there's no chance of it passing.

Heck, my own personal opinion is that if there was a chance in Dallas of it passing, the people in Congress who'd vote in favor of it, would change their votes to vote against it.

At least, I like to hope that the Republicans in Congress aren't as loony as the base they're catering to.

If it's introduced, (and it has been), it will be done strictly as a political move. A Constitutional Amendment publicity stunt.

[twa]

well, would not a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman in the United States effectively criminalize gay marriage?

No

It would prevent govt recognition of it and the issuing of licenses.

There are SSM's now that are not recognized...yet not illegal

I do agree that the chances of such a constitutional amendment passing are slim.

The court circus will continue for a long time w/o resolution imo(since I don't see SCOTUS recognizing it as a inherent right)