Argument against gay marriage in California hinges on accidental pregnancies

[eJohn]

Rainbow Kid wrote:

There is no question asking if you are preggers on a marriage license application
.
That would imply that premarital sex is OK. The church ladies would freak if such a question was asked
.
Clement needs to hush before some irate church lady flogs him with her purse

Guys like Clement are ALREADY being flogged, but not usually by church ladies. The ones doing their floggings usually charge about $1,000 an hour, mostly for keeping quiet about it.

[nhjeff]

Thanks to the Massachusetts marriage battles, I have learned two of the most mind-boggling truisms ever repeated--and both live zombie-like:

"Christians are the most discriminated against in the country." The first time I heard that, I laughed and laughed. I seriously thought the nut I was talking to was joking. At once we're supposed to believe this is a Christian nation, and we're supposed to believe that the nation discriminates against Christians. It is simply inconceivable that a nation 70% Christian by upbrining, governed 95% by Christians, and largely owned by Christians discriminates against Christians.

Soon enough, the look in her eyes made me realize she was deadly serious. When I finally stopped chuckling, she told me there is nothing funny about discrimination. I was merely left bemused and bewildered.(And here I'd been hoping to leave the rally bewitched, bothered, and bewildered, but I digress even further...)

I had the same reaction the first time I saw the argument about unplanned pregnancies. Seriously? Irresponsible procreation is the reason we need to exclude same-sex couples from marrying? Ay yi yi. Well, if that's the best argument they can come up with, I guess we should celebrate.

Unfortunately, you've still got 70% of the American population wandering around believing they are discriminated against because they Christian. We cannot rely on debunking even the most obvious absurdity.

[Edio]

Call Your Rev Obuma wrote:

<quoted text>
You have no statistics to back up your baseless last sentence assertion. I on the other hand have enough examples as to why you should never be allowed to raise children. Its called millions of years of trial and error and you are the constant error in numbers.

I typically don’t respond to posters like you, no matter what color lipstick you are wearing, because your frequent and bizarre posts are nothing more than weird rubbish. But I’ll make an exception for you since we both reside in Massachusetts (but thankfully, 85 miles away from each other!).

It would seem that when I said,“It would seem that …,” you might have understood that it is an opinion based on the thought (not assertion) that the planned families of same-sex couples are by their nature preferable to unplanned, unwanted, accidental, and/or irresponsible pregnancies of heterosexual couples who may, or may not, marry. Again, a baby will have a single, unwed mother 40% of the time. Not that this statistic bothers me; I’m sure many single moms are fantastic – as my sister is with her adoption of my wonderful niece. But the statistic punches a hole in the “responsible procreation” argument used by Paul Clement.

And your “ statistics”(examples?) for denigrating same-sex parents, I quote you,“It’s called millions of years of trial and error and you are the constant error in numbers.” Hummmm. What does that mean? Let’s not dwell on the fact that Homo Sapiens hasn't been around for “millions of years.” More like 200,000 years at most. Do you have any statistics or information that you can provide that sheds light on the family structure of archaic humans? Or even modern humans, c. 100,000 years ago? Do you think they married then? Maybe polygamous situations? Harems controlled by alpha males? Unplanned pregnancies? Maybe matriarchal tribal situations?

These are hypothetical questions, and although your answers may be amusing, don’t bother answering to me.

[Not Yet Equal]

Cave drawings, pottery, and other artifacts demonstrate same sex couples existed before written history.

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." (American Anthropological Association)

[Not Yet Equal]

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
To try and tie procreation directly to marriage would mean denying the right to marry to heterosexuals past the natural childbearing years and to infertile/sterile heterosexuals.......wouldn't that be considered discrimination?
Both marriage and procreation are FUNDAMENTAL rights, but they DON'T go hand in hand......look at these cases more closely and you will see:
Skinner vs Oklahoma--about the right to procreate regardless of one's IQ.
Loving vs Virginia---about the right to marry regardless of skin color.
Griswold vs Connecticut-----about a right to use birth control(really stifles the procreation argument)
Zablocki vs Rehail--about one's right to marry regardless of having a previous child and not paying support!!!
All of these cases discuss Marriage and Procreation as FUNDAMENTAL rights......not that they are tied together!!!

In addition to making it clear that procreation is not a requirement for marriage to remain a fundamental right, they also made it clear even the ability to have sex is not required, in Turner v. Salley.

Not only are those who are sterile due to age, operation, birth defect, or whatever reason still allowed to marry, those who cannot have sex due to accident, operation, birth defect, or even incarceration, are still treated equally under the marriage laws.

Irresponsible procreation totally fails as an excuse for discrimination, though it is one of the best excuses they have.

[Brian]

That's correct. There's no justification for Homosexuals to get marriage, it's not a legal issue anyways, it doesn't matter what they call themselves or even if Maggie marrys her dog. Their trying to force their perverted life styles on us

[disaster in the making]

You people don't get it congress is paying this dirt bag lawyer a grand a hour, you should be outraged, any of you that are HIV and getting Government assistance on your med's surprise congress cut it by 80% in the sequester you might not get a refill for months, granted my social security has not been affected but I still pay federal taxes and I'm outraged that congress funding this case privately.
get angry enough and wright your congress person
I did

[disaster in the making]

Brian wrote:

That's correct. There's no justification for Homosexuals to get marriage, it's not a legal issue anyways, it doesn't matter what they call themselves or even if Maggie marrys her dog. Their trying to force their perverted life styles on us

unless someone ripped your pants off and sucked you off no ones is nor ever tried to force anything on you, try minding your own business and staying out of ours.

[Curteese]

Brian wrote:

That's correct. There's no justification for Homosexuals to get marriage, it's not a legal issue anyways, it doesn't matter what they call themselves or even if Maggie marrys her dog. Their trying to force their perverted life styles on us

I wondered who Maggie Gallagher was married to now days, nice she got someone who she she looked like.

BTW...It's MARRIES, you idiot, not MARRY'S. And it's THEY'RE, not THEIR. What grade did you drop out of school? 4th or 5th?

Why are you pretty ones always so DUMB?

[Fa-Foxy]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

Cave drawings, pottery, and other artifacts demonstrate same sex couples existed before written history.
"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." (American Anthropological Association)

Who do you think DECORATED those caves so FABULOUSLY ?!

:)

[Xavier Breath]

Brian wrote:

That's correct. There's no justification for Homosexuals to get marriage, it's not a legal issue anyways, it doesn't matter what they call themselves or even if Maggie marrys her dog. Their trying to force their perverted life styles on us

It's not a legal issue? Are you smoking crack? Marriage is a legal contract, you idiot.

[Fa-Foxy]

Brian wrote:

That's correct. There's no justification for Homosexuals to get marriage, it's not a legal issue anyways, it doesn't matter what they call themselves or even if Maggie marrys her dog. Their trying to force their perverted life styles on us

Let me ASSURE you that once you've been COMPLETELY HOMSEXUALIZED, you'll LOVE it and KNOW that it's FABULOUS !

:)

Resistence is futile.

[RubyTheDyke]

Trying to figure out how a marriage could solve a problem that the simple and easy acess to a pill couldn't have done better

[Tony C]

That's funny. If that's all they've got, they're so over.

[JohnInToronto]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
It's been going on for the last ten years now. The SCOTUS said you should stay away from The Boy Scouts. Obviously you never learn or listen to the word no and enough. Degrading.

People who post under other people's names and identities need to have their faces dissolved in hydrofluoric acid.

[RubyTheDyke]

Tony C wrote:

That's funny. If that's all they've got, they're so over.

Of course its over. These people seemed to have this strange idea that that the law can be swayed by creative fiction, paranoid rants and angry tantrums. law demands proof of claims. They have none. End of story.

[Tebia]

JohnInToronto wrote:

<quoted text>
Come again?

Your ridiculous poltical charade has been exposed. Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.

It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.

No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.

Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?

Now, get thee hence.

[RubyTheDyke]

Tebia wrote:

<quoted text>Your ridiculous poltical charade has been exposed. Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.
It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.
Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?
Now, get thee hence.

...and speaking of creative fiction...

[Uve]

Tebia wrote:

<quoted text>Your ridiculous poltical charade has been exposed. Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.
It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.
Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?
Now, get thee hence.

I said this to when you were 'Enos' on another thread:

REMEMBER:

1. You CHOSE your religion

2. You CHOOSE to be self-righteous and judgmental

By being judgmental and self-righteous, you are not following your religion.-Therefore you are NOT a Christian.

And that big cross in your backyard doesn't make any difference

[RubyTheDyke]

The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:

<quoted text>
Just like so called ss marriage.
Further into debt.

Legal reality in ten states, babydoll. You'll find a princess riding a unicorn before you find a real reason against it