Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HtownWxBoy

California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

Recommended Posts

Ah, the human element. How touching.

Did you even watch the trailer? If you and your wife were in the same position as these women - you wouldn't be so flippant about this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I did. This is why I support Civil Unions (or whatever you want to call it) for MM or FF who need to seal the deal. Read my previous replies.

But let's just leave "Marriage" to the cheatin-Breeders.

Without Breeders there would be no gay people.

Show some respect and let's not water-down what Marriage means. Making babies for man-kind.

Edited by MidtownCoog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Show some respect and let's not water-down what Marriage means. Making babies for man-kind.

Not necessarily. The trend over the past two or three decades (holding real household income steady) has been toward fewer children per couple and more instances of couples delaying parenthood into their 30's...business has been good for fertility specialists as I understand it, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I did. This is why I support Civil Unions (or whatever you want to call it) for MM or FF who need to seal the deal. Read my previous replies.

But let's just leave "Marriage" to the cheatin-Breeders.

Without Breeders there would be no gay people.

Show some respect and let's not water-down what Marriage means. Making babies for man-kind.

Two points:

1. Exactly what do you think would be accomplished by allowing civil union for gay people but not allowing them to call it marriage? If it gives them all the legal rights and privileges that marriage gives straight people, and if the gay couple has a binding relationship to each other based on love, just like marriage - if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It would be a marriage in everything but name. Not allowing them to call it a marriage would serve no practical purpose. It would be done for no other purpose than to spite a group of people that another group of people find "icky". In a democracy based on justice and equality, laws aren't supposed to be passed just to spite a particular group of people and make them feel like second-class citizens.

2. Now let's talk about your not wanting to "water-down what marriage means. Making babies for man-kind." So if you are to be consistent, you must feel that every couple who has fertility problems and cannot conceive should not be allowed to marry, or should be required to have their marriage annulled, because obviously they are watering down what marriage means since they aren't making babies for man-kind. Every couple who chooses not to have children should likewise not be allowed to marry. Let's forget for a minute that, at nearly 7 billion people, the world is already overpopulated, and does not really need more babies made to produce more waste and consume more resources. Basically you are saying that any heterosexual couple who cannot have children or chooses not to have children is watering down what marriage means, and should not be allowed to call what they have a marriage.

Your argument rests on a foundation of quicksand.

Edited by Reefmonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that there are 7b people, infertile coules, and DINKS has nothing to do with Hank and Harry being allowed to get married.

Even though the traditional family unit has taken a beating in the last few decades, I still belive its model is the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's forget for a minute that, at nearly 7 billion people, the world is already overpopulated, and does not really need more babies made to produce more waste and consume more resources.

I'd take issue with that. The United States and Western Europe need a lot more babies (or immigrants), actually, in order to sustain population levels, maintain a level of economic growth by way of which to maintain geopolitical balance relative to places like China, and also to have highly productive younger people paying for older people's healthcare...I'd rather just let the older folks fend for themselves, but that's a political impossibility because they actually vote.

As a political concern, we do need a mechanism for breeding. I'm not sure that marriage necessarily has anything at all to do with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...and Western Europe need a lot more babies (or immigrants), actually, in order to sustain population levels, maintain a level of economic growth by way of which to maintain geopolitical balance relative to places like China, and also to have highly productive younger people paying for older people's healthcare...

Not to derail this topic, but maybe we could send them our illegal immigrants.

And not to inject any more fuel to this fire, but there are millions of children in foster care now. We don't need more children, we need to take care of the ones we have already.

Edited by houstonmacbro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that there are 7b people, infertile coules, and DINKS has nothing to do with Hank and Harry being allowed to get married.

Okay, fine, ignore the population argument - I said to forget it for a moment anyway.

However, you opened the can of worms about infertile couples and couples who choose not to have kids when you said "let's not water down what marriage means. Making babies for man-kind". Your logic is:

A. The meaning of marriage is to make babies; and

B. Gay couples cannot make babies; therefore

C. Gay couples should not be married.

That means you must also accept:

A. The meaning of marriage is to make babies; and

B. Infertile heterosexual couples cannot make babies; therefore

C. Infertile heterosexual couples should not be married.

You made infertile couples and DINKS have everything to do with Hank and Harry being allowed to get married when you said "let's not water down what marriage means. Making babies for man-kind." Saying now that they have nothing to do with each other requires vacating that statement.

And you did not respond to this:

1. Exactly what do you think would be accomplished by allowing civil union for gay people but not allowing them to call it marriage? If it gives them all the legal rights and privileges that marriage gives straight people, and if the gay couple has a binding relationship to each other based on love, just like marriage - if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It would be a marriage in everything but name. Not allowing them to call it a marriage would serve no practical purpose. It would be done for no other purpose than to spite a group of people that another group of people find "icky". In a democracy based on justice and equality, laws aren't supposed to be passed just to spite a particular group of people and make them feel like second-class citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B. Gay couples cannot make babies; therefore

It turns out that making babies is much easier than raising them. Some gay couples are willing to raise them, even if they can't contribute all of the genetic material needed to create them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you did not respond to this:

1. Exactly what do you think would be accomplished by allowing civil union for gay people but not allowing them to call it marriage? If it gives them all the legal rights and privileges that marriage gives straight people, and if the gay couple has a binding relationship to each other based on love, just like marriage - if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It would be a marriage in everything but name. Not allowing them to call it a marriage would serve no practical purpose. It would be done for no other purpose than to spite a group of people that another group of people find "icky". In a democracy based on justice and equality, laws aren't supposed to be passed just to spite a particular group of people and make them feel like second-class citizens.

The breeders of the world beat y'all to that title (marriage). Name it something else.

But I am not the one you have to worry about. Worry about your elected officals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I can take your nonresponse to the issue of childless couples as you conceding that your argument about gay marriage watering down the purpose of marriage (making babies) was preposterous?

The breeders of the world beat y'all to that title (marriage). Name it something else.

But I am not the one you have to worry about. Worry about your elected officals.

I happen to be a married breeder myself, of a 1 yo daughter.

The breeders of the world beat y'all to that title (marriage). Name it something else.

Are you seriously going to advance this as an argument? You sound like a 6 year-old on a Jungle Jim in a public park telling other kids "I was here first - go find your own."

There is no trademark on the term "marriage"

As I said, if it walks like a duck, it's a duck. With civil unions, they have the rights, they have the emotional committment to each other, they have united their daily lives together. Gay couples, even in jurisdictions that don't recognize gay marriage, are having ceremonies and calling themselves married, just as the first Christians to have christian marriage ceremonies in ancient Rome called themselves married even though SPQR didn't recognize their marriages. They are marriages, no matter what you call them. You can stick your fingers in your ears, say "nahnahnahnahI-can't-hear-you" as loud as you want, but that won't change the fact that these people are married. You do nothing more than expose your bigotry. One day, history will look back on people like you the same way it now looks upon people who insisted "separate but equal" was fair enough for black people.

Edited by Reefmonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You sound like a 6 year-old on a Jungle Jim in a public park telling other kids "I was here first - go find your own."

Let's be careful here, kids. Keep it on-topic and non-personal. I'm keeping an eye on this thread and will close it if it goes astray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn, Reefer. In my eyes marriage is between a man and a woman.

Pope Benedict XVI agrees, having described same-sex marriages as ''pseudo-matrimony."

There really is nothing to debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yawn, Reefer. In my eyes marriage is between a man and a woman.

Pope Benedict XVI agrees, having described same-sex marriages as ''pseudo-matrimony."

There really is nothing to debate.

Midtown and the Pope decree the definition of marriage. Well guess that settles it. Case closed. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Midtown and the Pope decree the definition of marriage. Well guess that settles it. Case closed. <_<

I couldn't have said it any better.

Edited by Reefmonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pope and Midtown's decree is no different that those who want to rewrite the definition in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Pope and Midtown's decree is no different that those who want to rewrite the definition in the first place.

So Benedict XVI says that gay marriage isn't real marriage, so it must be true.

Benedict XVI also said:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Notice the captial "C" in "Churches."

It has meaning.

It's patronizing and demeaning any way you try to spin it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's patronizing and demeaning any way you try to spin it.

Truth is truth. It's not B16's fault that you can't see it. "Patronizing" and "demeaning" are spin.

Edited by CDeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truth is truth. It's not B16's fault that you can't see it. "Patronizing" and "demeaning" are spin.

You mean "dogma is dogma". Unfortunately you can't see past that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and faster than Oprah Winfrey on a baked ham, the thread goes off topic.

Closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...