Argument against gay marriage in Cali...

Argument against gay marriage in California hinges on accidental pregnancies

There are 80 comments on the news.yahoo.com story from Mar 4, 2013, titled Argument against gay marriage in California hinges on accidental pregnancies. In it, news.yahoo.com reports that:

In a brief filed with the Supreme Court last week, the Obama administration slammed the unusual legal argument now key in the movement against gay marriage: that gay couples cannot become accidentally pregnant and thus do not need access to marriage.

The argument has become the centerpiece of two major cases addressing gay marriage that the Supreme Court will consider at the end of March, Hollingsworth v. Perry, a challenge to California’s gay marriage ban, and United States v. Windsor, which seeks to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

"Only a man and a woman can beget a child together without advance planning, which means that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring," wrote Paul Clement, a prominent attorney representing congressional Republicans in the DOMA case.

Clement added in his brief to the Supreme Court arguing to uphold that law that the government has a legitimate interest in solely recognizing marriages between men and women because it encourages them to form stable family units. "Because same-sex relationships cannot naturally produce offspring, they do not implicate the State’s interest in responsible procreation and childrearing in the same way that opposite-sex relationships do," attorneys who are seeking to uphold Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California in 2008, argued in their brief. The opponents to gay marriage also argue it's possible the public perception of marriage would change if gay couples were allowed to wed, discouraging straight people from marrying.

In the administration's friend of the court brief, the Justice Department took a dim view of the argument. "Marriage is far more than a societal means of dealing with unintended pregnancies," the Justice Department wrote. The brief also argued that preventing gay couples from marrying would not help or hurt the quest to encourage straight couples to marry when they have children.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at news.yahoo.com.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#60 Mar 4, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
Self righteous and judgemental? LOL! You're in the minority! LOL!
Obviously, cause you're guilty of it too..

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#61 Mar 4, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like so called ss marriage.
Further into debt.
And before you drag out the same tired arguments, take a minute to think about WHY they are throwing out an argument as desperate as this one: the fact that every tired argument you have used here ad nauseum on Topix concerning it has been smashed to smithereens in court.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#66 Mar 4, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
Believe it or not for as long as this has been legal here I have heard of few ss marriages in Berserkshire County, MA. This is all a bunch of hot air and voter fraud. In fact the biggest news was about four years ago when a lesbian tried to 'forcibly' impregnate here 'companion' with a turkey baster full of her brothers sperm. Perfectly normal behavior, Sugarbush.
Gobble Gobble Gobble!
Pretty much of a non sequitor

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#67 Mar 4, 2013
The Court: "I'm asking you to tell me how it would harm opposite sex marriages."

Mr. Cooper: "Your Honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know."

p. 24, Motion for Summary Judgement

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#68 Mar 4, 2013
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
You're one sick fk, Foxy
Well, we already know we got you a long time ago !

:)
Tebia

Pekin, IL

#74 Mar 4, 2013
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Idiot, I said nothing of religion.

You cannot refute even one of the points I made and your horrible hate based attack on marriage remains exposed as FRAUD.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#75 Mar 4, 2013
fr "tebia", really DAVID MOORE OF PEKIN IL:

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

Davy boy, hasn't mommy ever taught you not to lie about anyone, especially your betters? Pitiful.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#76 Mar 5, 2013
Tebia wrote:
<quoted text>Idiot, I said nothing of religion.
You cannot refute even one of the points I made and your horrible hate based attack on marriage remains exposed as FRAUD.
I didn't attack marriage, I attacked you, your posted and your bigotry. I don't need to refute 'your' points. I have in the past and my very existence and my 20yr marriage refutes it. As far as your CHOSEN religion, you don't have to say anything about it, we all know who you are and we all know it's your misdirected motivation in spreading hate and misinformation. Once you realize how awful and unchristian that your actions are, maybe you will stop.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#78 Mar 5, 2013
Cranial Abortion wrote:
What about your own bigotry Uve? Show me one example where to human beings of the ss attemped and succeeded in producing a child. That's not only bigotry, that's radical!
How does producing a child relate to bigotry? Lame..The only thing I'm bigoted toward is mindless self-righteous ignorance..Does it apply?

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#81 Mar 5, 2013
Happy Anniversary 1913 wrote:
<quoted text>
Pot meet kettle uve.
How's that popuation argument comin out?
Your snide remarks aren't making any sense, try putting on your lipstick, coward. BTW you still suck no matter what color is applied...

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#83 Mar 5, 2013
Stretchmarks wrote:
No Uve, sadly it is you that sucks. With and without lipstick.
I try and be civil, not insulting and formulate logical responses. This is the kind of sh*t I get in response. So back to my old ways...Dream on c(_)ntlicker, there's no way I put that little gray flaccid thing in my mouth!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#85 Mar 5, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
So post #81 was supposed to be civil Uve?
You act like a school girl with a crush, professing how much she hates the object of her affection.

Grow up, or head to the children's forum.

And wipe that brown "lipstick" off your face!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#86 Mar 5, 2013
Cranial Abortion wrote:
What about your own bigotry Uve? Show me one example where to human beings of the ss attemped and succeeded in producing a child. That's not only bigotry, that's radical!
Why do you care if the couple can produce a child? What does having the ability to procreate have to do with having the right to marry the person of one's choosing? Do we prevent a heterosexual couple from marry, if the woman is past her childbearing years? Do we prevent a heterosexual couple from marrying if both or one of the individual participants is infertile/sterile?

If a heterosexual couple is not prevented from marrying based on their inability to naturally produce a child........then why is it okay to deny the right to marry for a Same-Sex Couple who does not have the natural ability as well?

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#87 Mar 5, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
So post #81 was supposed to be civil Uve?
For me, Yea..I've not directed toward you, what I'm really capable of...smile

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#89 Mar 5, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural Law suggests that since you engage in such behaviors that you do not champion such fine virtues of your own father and mother.
Again, you don't have a clue about what I feel towards my parents........somehow you are under the impression that Gays and Lesbians have a bad relationship with our parents and we don't!!!

We also understand that regardless of the parental make-up.......kids do well when raised by two loving parents who support them and provide for them a stable environment!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#90 Mar 5, 2013
Marriage it is a fundamental right of the individual.

The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.

While churches may place any restrictions they choose on their own ceremonies, the government can only restrict fundamental rights when a compelling and legitimate justification can be demonstrated and withstand judicial scrutiny.

Most can agree with the courts that reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, not being closely related, or currently married.

Gender is not a restriction. There is no legitimate reason to require one of each.

Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate qualification. Yet even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment under the law provides nothing to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.

Gay couples are seeking to be treated equally under the laws currently in effect, in the remaining states that do not yet recognize their marriages, and by the federal government.

Neither tradition nor gender provides a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of this fundamental right.

As Justice Kennedy wrote about the founding fathers: "They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress."

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#91 Mar 5, 2013
While there are various explanations of natural law, one of the tenets that appears throughout the various versions, is the ethic of reciprocity and equality. That "no man require to reserve to himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest".

"Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal." The Dalai Lama
Yet treating others with respect and equality does not require any religious belief. Non-theistic ethical and philosophic systems, like Humanism and Ethical Culture, believe in equality, fairness, and respect for others.

While all belief systems have differences, all major religions, ethical systems, and philosophies agree that each person should treat others as they would themselves. Almost all of these groups have passages in their holy texts, or writings of their leaders, which promote this Ethic of Reciprocity. The most commonly known version in North America is the Golden Rule of Christianity. It is often expressed as "Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you." Or in "natural law": that "no man require to reserve to himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest".

Not only is refusing to treat others as you would yourself under the law a violation of every major ethical belief system, it is a violation of the promise of equality in the founding documents and required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#93 Mar 5, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't assuming anything. I was making an assertion that supporting something so preposterous as ss parenting, let alone unions, is abrogating your own parents original intentions. Championing the continuation of you, the bloodline, the lifeline.
...and a partridge in a pear tree...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#94 Mar 5, 2013
just a thought wrote:
Throughout all these absurd arguments, two things keep coming to mind. First perhaps one of the Almighty's reasons for creating gays is to slow down all this procreation whether intended or not as the world is hugely overpopulated and we no longer need to be fruitful and multiply.
Second, who will there be to adopt and love and cherish all the unintended, unplanned babies produced by heteros??? Obviously not them as the orphanages are always overflowing. I can see this all working out for the better for all concerned if we can just quell the nonsensical, homo-spouting, hate-filled religious and non bigots.
Bid Red heart

Namaste
Dubya

Chachoengsao, Thailand

#95 Mar 5, 2013
Scalia needs to reuse himself. Go to the site below to sign petition!

http://www.change.org/petitions/chief-justice...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News US Navy ship to be named after late gay rights ... 38 min Bama Yankee 19
News Same-sex voucher stoush: Does NZ treat gay coup... (Jun '15) 1 hr Ray Cathode 8
News Excited by Trump, gay Republicans struggle with... 2 hr JODECKO 266
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 3 hr River Tam 15,107
News Alabama's chief justice defends his gay marriag... 4 hr Seperate Church N... 10
Little Robbie's Nursery Rhymes 5 hr HAHAHAHA 2
Watching Over You by Greg Lake 6 hr Fa-Foxy 2
More from around the web