Gay marriage ban upheld in California

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Nobody is being a bigot, but somebody is being a delusional progressive.

You liberals really don't get it.   God created man and a woman with different reproduction organs to damn REPRODUCE!      The interracial marriages are not the same as your case for gay marriages period.   It doesn't matter what color the man or woman is bottom line they can both mate and reproduce, thus forming a bond of marriage to care for the child.    You want to redefine the man/ woman institution to now say man and man or woman and woman.   Liberals argue and bitch about wanting to change our society, yet the end result is always more problems.   Actually you guys have did a pretty good job at destroying hetro marriages enough as it is.

Gay marriages would be the final nail in the coffin.

You do, um, realize that there is more to marriage than making babies, right?  And that we were doing just fine with making babies before we created the legal definition of marriage?

[MK]

Nobody is being a bigot, but somebody is being a delusional progressive.

You liberals really don't get it.  God created man and a woman with different reproduction organs to damn REPRODUCE!      The interracial marriages are not the same as your case for gay marriages period.  IT doesn't matter what color the man or woman is bottom line they can both mate and reproduce, thus forming a bond of marriage to care for the child.    You want to redefine the man/ woman institution to now say man and man or woman and woman.  Liberals argue and bitch about wanting to change our society, yet the end result is always more problems.  Actually you guys have did a pretty good job at destroying hetero marriages enough as it is.

Gay marriages would be the final nail in the coffin.

You do, um, realize that there is more to marriage than making babies, right?  And that we were doing just fine with making babies before we created the legal definition of marriage?

Yeah, and back then I'm sure there wasn't a bunch of homosexuals rising children.   Families/ household have always consisted of the the father(man) and mother (woman).   

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Yes, as we all know, the main reason people want to get married is to legitimize having children and the best way to this is by granting them a legal status which in terms of daily life is effectively meaningless. Wonderful. I feel so educated, no doubt every heterosexual couple thinks marriage=thumbs up for kids.

Saying x is good because the function of x is good (especially when no one who is in x thinks of x in terms of its supposed function *cue attack on evolutionary psychology*) is one of the most common and most stupid arguments in the whole of sociological debate. And THAT's saying something. Here it's a massive diversion tactic to show that the opponents of gay marriage have no arguments other than tradition and similiar discredited hobgoblins.

[Earth]

Nobody is being a bigot, but somebody is being a delusional progressive.

You liberals really don't get it.   God created man and a woman with different reproduction organs to damn REPRODUCE!

You obviously don't get the fact that many people don't base their view on religious grounds.

"These rules were written 100 years ago and we have always followed them. Therefore, there is no need to change them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

The interracial marriages are not the same as your case for gay marriages period.   It doesn't matter what color the man or woman is bottom line they can both mate and reproduce, thus forming a bond of marriage to care for the child. 

And yet, in previous decades, people argued exactly that; blacks shouldn't marry whites, sire kids, etc. It's the same thing, but this time, the conflict is based in sexuality instead of race. It's a direct descendant of bigoted ideology.

Secondly, the ability to reproduce does not form a bond of marriage. It takes legal recognition, not a working womb.

Liberals argue and bitch about wanting to change our society, yet the end result is always more problems.

Because of people trying to control what others can and cannot do; they create the problems instead of allowing people to make that decision for themselves. People fighting against the freedom to choose who to marry, regardless of sex, are the ones creating these problems. They can't seem to mind their damned business.

Actually you guys have did a pretty good job at destroying hetro marriages enough as it is.

Gay marriages would be the final nail in the coffin.

No one arguing this has offered any evidence that heterosexual marriage would be harmed.

[Lincoln Republican]

Actually, two women CAN have a child.  Sperm banks were created for heterosexual couples but they still work for others.

Excuse me?

I really hate to burst your fantasy here, but the two women did not have the child.

In instances to which you refer, one of the women is artificially inseminated with the sperm from an, obviously, male sperm donor.  Needless to say, the sperm that fertilizes the egg does not come from the woman's same sex partner.

The one woman becomes the biological mother, true, but the same sex partner has nothing whatsoever to do with the conception of the baby.   

That's a most interesting interpretation of what he said.

And, again, they can if they try really, really hard.

It's nice to see someone actually inject some humor into this discussion.

And that is funny, someone saying that a gay couple could actually conceive a baby together.

That's hilarious.

[Scam of God]

In re: That "will of the voters" nonsense. It comes from the insane conceit that democracy is in itself an intrinsic moral good, rather than one of many competing factors in a balanced government. The entire concept of a system of laws is to reduce the power of public opinion. Otherwise we might as well throw out the courts and go with mob rule.

The average person should only be allowed to vote on general statements of legal principle, rather than specific issues. We have seen time and time again that the average person is more than capable of supporting a general statement of principle while rejecting the ramifications of that principle. I've lost count of the number of people who say that they oppose discrimination against homosexuals but they also oppose legalizing gay marriage. The average person is too stupid to recognize his own contradictions, because he does not think logically. He does not start from principle and then deduce conclusion; he instead starts from conclusion and then looks for appropriate supporting principles, whatever they may be. Popular opinion when it suits him, legalistic mumbo jumbo when it doesn't, religious tripe when he can't think of anything else, appeals to tradition, whatever. The same person today who demands respect for states' rights would tomorrow lobby his Congresspeople to vote for a Federal Marriage Amendment.

No matter what conclusion you want, there's always a principle which supports it. That's why people like this are always able to construct an argument. You never see them at a loss for words; it's just that those words do not come from any kind of coherent value system. It shifts and changes depending on what they want to justify today.

[Alcon]

It's nice to see someone actually inject some humor into this discussion.

And that is funny, someone saying that a gay couple could actually conceive a baby together.

That's hilarious.

You're attacking a joke instead of the many substantiative arguments made against your claims?

[Lincoln Republican]

It's nice to see someone actually inject some humor into this discussion.

And that is funny, someone saying that a gay couple could actually conceive a baby together.

That's hilarious.

You're attacking a joke instead of the many substantiative arguments made against your claims?

What?  I was doing no such thing.  I was complimenting the poster for his humor.  His statement was very funny.

[Holmes]

Winfield, have you pledged yet to protect marriage from sterile or old couples?

[Joe Republic]

I'd still like to know how two gay people marrying would personally affect Winfield, MK, or indeed anybody else who opposes it.

[Holmes]

Winfield, have you pledged yet to protect marriage from sterile or old couples?

Marriage isn't about children; it's about sexuality.  Gays know a lot about eroticism but are extremely ignorant of sexuality.

But I just read a few pages back that marriage was about the children. Please, if you're gonna debate me, I suggest you guys get your arguments straight first.

Sexuality... are you one of those creepy old guys who are saying same-sex marriage is bad because a woman's sexuality is fluid, or something weird like that?

[Lincoln Republican]

Like I said, we are not living in an ideal world.  Your point is well taken that not all married heterosexual couples will have children, obviously.  On the other hand, no homosexual couples, together, will have a child, ever.  Have, as in procreate.  Anyone want to dispute this?  Good luck.

Do you also believe that marriages should be dissolved at menopause? I highly doubt that you do, and as such, redefining marriage is therefore necessary, even from your standpoint.

Dissolved at menopause?  Obviously not.  I am assuming this is not a serious question.

I have stated that one of the purposes of marriage, that is heterosexual marriage, is to bring children into the world.  I have also stated that obviously not all heterosexual marriages will produce children.  This is of course for one of a number of many different reasons.  Perhaps the couple are infertile, perhaps one of the partners is infertile, perhaps the couple is too old, perhaps the couple simply do not want to have children.  That makes those heterosexual marriages no less valid than heterosexual marriages that do produce children.  As well, as far as I am concerned, heterosexual couples who adopt a child or children are every bit as much the parents of the children as if they had given birth to the child or children themselves.

I do not follow your logic that as such redefining marriage is therefore necessary.  Redefining marriage is absolutely not necessary, not under any circumstances.

Let me be clear.  I support equality for gays and lesbians in all aspects of their lives, no discrimination against gays and lesbians  in employment, housing, or any other aspect.

But I draw the line at marriage, or any homosexual union or relationship that is legally called marriage.

I have no problem with gays and lesbians being allowed to have legally recognized relationships and having them called civil unions.

But the gay community has gone too far in demanding marriage.

[Holmes]

Civil marriage is a legal contract yo, and because of the oh so abused divorce option, it is something that can and is re-negotiated a few times. And it's sad that a lot of these "marriage warriors" are in their second, third, etc marriages.

Winfield, your arguments are illogical. At first you say marriage should be about creating children, which is the reason you oppose same-sex marriage, and as such, it should be why you oppose marriage between couples who can no longer pro-create. But then you say they should have access to marriage too. So...

If you support gay marriage, then I have a question for you.  Do you support marriages between brother and sister, father-daughter, mother-son?  If not, why?  

I answered this question  a few pages back.

[Joe Republic]

Dissolved at menopause?  Obviously not.  I am assuming this is not a serious question.

I have stated that one of the purposes of marriage, that is heterosexual marriage, is to bring children into the world.  I have also stated that obviously not all heterosexual marriages will produce children.  This is of course for one of a number of many different reasons.  Perhaps the couple are infertile, perhaps one of the partners is infertile, perhaps the couple is too old, perhaps the couple simply do not want to have children.  That makes those heterosexual marriages no less valid than heterosexual marriages that do produce children.  As well, as far as I am concerned, heterosexual couples who adopt a child or children are every bit as much the parents of the children as if they had given birth to the child or children themselves.

I do not follow your logic that as such redefining marriage is therefore necessary.  Redefining marriage is absolutely not necessary, not under any circumstances.

Let me be clear.  I support equality for gays and lesbians in all aspects of their lives, no discrimination against gays and lesbians  in employment, housing, or any other aspect.

But I draw the line at marriage, or any homosexual union or relationship that is legally called marriage.

I have no problem with gays and lesbians being allowed to have legally recognized relationships and having them called civil unions.

But the gay community has gone too far in demanding marriage.

Winfield, you seem to prefer to state and re-state your opinion at length without appearing that you're taking anything we're saying on board.  You also rarely justify your position without reverting to previous arguments that we've already shot down.  In short, you're forcing the discussion into circles.

The point that Tonberry was making with his question re: dissolution of marriage at menopause was deliberately facetious in order to point out the flaw in your reasoning.

You assert that the main purpose of marriage is to produce children.  We all agree that gay couples cannot naturally do this.  However, you do not seem to logically follow that if (for whatever reason) a heterosexual couple cannot naturally have children, then by your own standards their marriage is also not "real".

But worst of all, when confronted with questions you don't wish to answer, you'll either ignore them completely or employ the debate tactic I described in my first paragraph.

[Lincoln Republican]

Winfield, have you pledged yet to protect marriage from sterile or old couples?

Now that question is from way out in left field.

I trust you are not being serious in asking that question.

Anyway, see my reply to Tonberry, earlier on this page, that addresses this issue.  (Reply # 196)

[Holmes]

Okay, so you believe that a man can marry his mother as long as there is "consent".  What is then the point of marriage?  Government benefits?

Marriage is a different institution for everyone. For one couple, it might just be the benefits, for the other, it might be something else.

You know what happened in France, right? The goverment got rid of marriage and offered civil unions to all, but now so many people are skipping religious marriage and are getting the civil unions instead. So it's not crazy to think, even in the US, for a lot of couples, it is just the benefits.

[Holmes]

Okay, so you believe that a man can marry his mother as long as there is "consent".  What is then the point of marriage?  Government benefits?

Marriage is a different institution for everyone. For one couple, it might just be the benefits, for the other, it might be something else.

You know what happened in France, right? The goverment got rid of marriage and offered civil unions to all, but now so many people are skipping religious marriage and are getting the civil unions instead. So it's not crazy to think, even in the US, for a lot of couples, it is just the benefits.

So if a mother and son were to get married, do you really believe they should receive full benefits?  And how do you think the taxpayers will approve?

What exactly are you trying to make me say? I've already said all I could on the issue and if you keep bringing up the same question, I'm probably not gonna keep debating you on it.

[Lincoln Republican]

Civil marriage is a legal contract yo, and because of the oh so abused divorce option, it is something that can and is re-negotiated a few times. And it's sad that a lot of these "marriage warriors" are in their second, third, etc marriages.

Winfield, your arguments are illogical. At first you say marriage should be about creating children, which is the reason you oppose same-sex marriage, and as such, it should be why you oppose marriage between couples who can no longer pro-create. But then you say they should have access to marriage too. So...

If you support gay marriage, then I have a question for you.  Do you support marriages between brother and sister, father-daughter, mother-son?  If not, why?  

I answered this question  a few pages back.

Do you ever read what I actually say, or are you simply trying to find fault?

Perhaps you could actually read what I said in reply #167 on page 12, wherein I stated that one of the reasons for marriage is to bring children into the world.  Do you know what one means?  One is singular, meaning not all encompassing. 

There are many reasons for opposing same sex marriage.  Their inability to have children is not one of them.  That is simply an obvious fact. 

It is ridiculous to say that I oppose marriage between couples who can no longer procreate.  What ridiculous tripe.  I have never said this.  In fact, I have stated the exact opposite.

Your arguments are baseless. 

If your arguments were a boat, it would be sinking faster than you could say help, bring me a bucket.       

[Holmes]

In reply #167 on page 12, all you talked about was children. Your use of the word "one" would have been more powerful had you listed other uses of marriage and why same-sex couples should not have the right to enter in such a contract.

[Lincoln Republican]

In reply #167 on page 12, all you talked about was children. Your use of the word "one" would have been more powerful had you listed other uses of marriage and why same-sex couples should not have the right to enter in such a contract.

Okay, we are making progress.

Instead of ignoring what I actually wrote and twisting the meaning, you now admit that I stated that one of the reasons for marriage was to bring children into the world.

Thank you for owning up to this.  Your apology is accepted.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In re: That "will of the voters" nonsense. It comes from the insane conceit that democracy is in itself an intrinsic moral good, rather than one of many competing factors in a balanced government. The entire concept of a system of laws is to reduce the power of public opinion.

The "will of the voters" certainly makes more sense than the argument that a court forcing a State government to use the same word for same-sex and opposite-sex relationships against that will of the voters will somehow cause those voters who oppose that to accord opposite-sex relationships the same respect that accord same-sex relationships.

I strongly doubt the following conversation or anything like it will ever occur among those who view marriage as something that should be same-sex only:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Advocates of achieving gay marriage to be recognized by the state via the judicial process instead of the are on far sounder legal ground when they base their arguments on a basis of seeking equal rights rather than of seeking equal wording.

Otherwise we might as well throw out the courts and go with mob rule.

The courts can only go so far against popular opinion before they generate mob rule.  The excesses of the French courts were one of the precipitating factors of the French Revolution and the principal reason that the French civil code system denies the courts the power to base decisions on precedent.

[Joe Republic]

In reply #167 on page 12, all you talked about was children. Your use of the word "one" would have been more powerful had you listed other uses of marriage and why same-sex couples should not have the right to enter in such a contract.

Okay, we are making progress.

Instead of ignoring what I actually wrote and twisting the meaning, you now admit that I stated that one of the reasons for marriage was to bring children into the world.

Thank you for owning up to this.  Your apology is accepted.

Nice try, but you can't escape the fact that your arguments against gay marriage are crumbling quickly.  Now that the 'inability to have children' excuse has dried up, what's the next argument you have?

I notice that my description on the previous page of your debate technique is ringing true, amusingly.

[Joe Republic]

By the way:

I'd still like to know how two gay people marrying would personally affect Winfield, MK, or indeed anybody else who opposes it.

[Lincoln Republican]

In reply #167 on page 12, all you talked about was children. Your use of the word "one" would have been more powerful had you listed other uses of marriage and why same-sex couples should not have the right to enter in such a contract.

Okay, we are making progress.

Instead of ignoring what I actually wrote and twisting the meaning, you now admit that I stated that one of the reasons for marriage was to bring children into the world.

Thank you for owning up to this.  Your apology is accepted.

Nice try, but you can't escape the fact that your arguments against gay marriage are crumbling quickly.  Now that the 'inability to have children' excuse has dried up, what's the next argument you have?

I notice that my description on the previous page of your debate technique is ringing true, amusingly.

You know, it wouldn't matter to pro gay marriage advocates what anti gay marriage advocates said about this issue, or what arguments against gay marriage they put forward.

Gays and gay marriage advocates would always fall back on the tired old lines of equality, rights, calling anyone opposed to their view bigots, and cry discrimination, while putting forward absolutely nothing to state why gay marriage would be a benefit to society.

Gays want marriage.  The onus is on them to show why gay marriage would be a benefit to society.

My arguments are as solid as they have ever been.

If you are basing your "crumbling" comments on my marriage and children statements, then you are mistaken in thinking that this point is not valid, just because, obviously, many heterosexual couples cannot have children.  One reason for marriage is and always has been to bring children into the world.  Only a fool would believe just because there are married heterosexual couples who cannot have children that this point is not valid.  To dismiss this point on this basis is ludicrous.  We all know there are various reasons why some couples cannot or do not have children.  This fact in no way detracts from the fact that one of the reasons for marriage is children.

[Earth]

Winfield, have you pledged yet to protect marriage from sterile or old couples?

Marriage isn't about children; it's about sexuality.  Gays know a lot about eroticism but are extremely ignorant of sexuality.

Marriage, once again, isn't about:

1)Children
2)Sexuality
3)Sex

Marriage is, in religious terms, a covenant of two people, recognition by God. Legally, it's the recognition of a couple, a social contract. This argument goes nowhere if fifty people throw around more than one definition.

I never said that marriage was about children.  However, marriage should be denied to homosexuals for the very reason that man + man and woman + woman NEVER produces children.

A is not about B
C and D should not be denied A, regardless of B
but...

E and F should be denied based on B

You make no sense, Vander.

Gays and gay marriage advocates would always fall back on the tired old lines of equality, rights, calling anyone opposed to their view bigots, and cry discrimination, while putting forward absolutely nothing to state why gay marriage would be a benefit to society.

Gays want marriage.  The onus is on them to show why gay marriage would be a benefit to society.

This goes both ways (pun intended). The same benefit applies here, namely social cohesion. Not one of the anti-gay marriage arguers has given an adequate justification for their main points; a) harm to heterosexual marriage b) or why double standards are used.