vote yes on proposition 8

Holy Roller said:

Because procreation is more than just a nine-month process.
Procreation is a two-step process, as I illustrated above:

1. The first step in procreation is the first 9 months.
2. Procreation would be meaningless unless the child is taken care of after the birth. For this reason, the second step of procreation involves the raising of the child up until his or her 18th year.

Both require the gender difference.

Click to expand...

I know a lot of couples that have not had nor want kids, their marriages are next to be banned.

OphidiaPhile said:

I know a lot of couples that have not had nor want kids, their marriages are next to be banned.

Click to expand...

Be fruitful, and multiply, or else!

Washington said:

They aren't. It's just a simple matter of

H O M O P H O B I A

​

Click to expand...

I agree. When they can come up with a reason other than, "it's not normal", I'll be convinced the motives lie elsewhere.

Holy Roller said:

By virtue of their gender difference, male and females can get married.
If sterilization is part of the marriage, then the couple is marrying for all the wrong reasons (usually money or some other trite reason),

Click to expand...

Like love, and the desire to commit to one another exclusively for the rest of their lives?

but since the gender difference is still present; thus, the potential for procreation still manifests, the marriage should be allowed to proceed.

Click to expand...

The potential for procreation DOES NOT EXIST for a couple that has been medically sterilized. Your statement is false.

Holy Roller said:

Face it. If your youngest daughter were to come home with an elephant, you'd say, "cool elephant! So where are you gonna keep your new pet?" And if she were to say, "He's not my pet mom, he's my fiance", you'd likely throw a fit.

Click to expand...

A nonhuman animal is not considered legally competent to enter into a contract or consent to sexual activity. Being attracted to, and wanting to marry, an adult human is not the same as being attracted to, and wanting to marry, a nonhuman animal.

Again, sound lawmaking demands we take the ideal into consideration and reject the exceptions to the rule.

Click to expand...

Actually, sound lawmaking generally considers the statistical average, not "the ideal." Especially since "the ideal," by definition, is imaginary.

Holy Roller said:

But if you go over to the I'd be exstatic to have a gay child thread, you'd realise that most the people who posted there are terrified of what schoolyard bullies and the like would do to their gay children.
This automatically presumes any "gayness" will be dealt with severely. That means taht any child reared in a gay household will have to face heretofore unknown and very substantial emotional abuse by his peers.
Thus, gay families can be thought of as a kind of child abuse.
Now let's get back on topic.

Click to expand...

By the same reasoning, if I'm worried that my future children will be bullied for being too bookish and intelligent, it's child abuse to encourage my kids to read. Do you understand how absurd that is?

Holy Roller said:

In the instance where the mother is a schitzophrenic and the father is an abusive drunkard, even two hippo's--no, make that two gay hippo's-- would be better parents to the child than the biological alternative.

But we're not talking about abusive biological parents, and we're not talking about hippos, either. We're talking about the ideal, and whether or not the ideal should take legal presidence over the non-ideal.

The ideal is a legally married man and woman raising a child as part of a family. The non-ideal would be a single mom, a gay couple or two hippopotamus's raising that child.
When we write laws, we have to take the ideal into account. Since there is no biological difference between the races of man, an interracial couple may also be a part of the ideal.
Hopefully, this will address staccato and everyone else.

Click to expand...

No, we're not taking "the idea" into account; we're taking the statistical average into account. Nobody's talking about gay parents being better than schizophrenic or abusive alcoholic parents; we're talking about the average gay parents being just as good as the average straight parents. I don't know where the anti-gay marriage crowd got this idea of the Platonic ideal of parentdom (because you're not the first person I've seen it from), but it has no place in a legal setting.

For OP.

I've already voted yes to human civil rights. So thanks but no thanks.

Holy Roller said:

Since when did I ever say that abnormal behavior is "undesirable"?
Can you please stop reading between lines? You are illiterate when you do so.
Someone said I was abnormal once because I was spending so much time at the office pouring over balance sheets and what not. I told her I'm doing what I like to do, even if it was downright maniacal (it's a word).
There are neuroses that would be considered abnormalities, yet are not at all undesirable. My mind may be abnormal in the fact that it can generate a number of high-grade ideas on just about any topic conceivable to man. But is this undesirable? Some would say yes; others, no.

As I was telling toocurious in a P/M: gay people have the highest standard of living and the highest quality of life than anyone else, anywhere in the world. For this reason, the abnormality of homosexuality can be perceived as an asset rather than a liability.
The homosexual is not abnormal. His sexual orientation is.

Click to expand...

Then, if normalcy or a lack thereof carries no prescriptive value, what does the relative normalcy of homosexuality have to do with the price of tea in China? Why even bring it up, if "normal" or "not normal" has no prescriptive weight?

TooCurious said:

Then, if normalcy or a lack thereof carries no prescriptive value, what does the relative normalcy of homosexuality have to do with the price of tea in China? Why even bring it up, if "normal" or "not normal" has no prescriptive weight?

Click to expand...

Like I told you in the PM, I am indifferent to these things. Things that have meaning to other people go by me without my noticing, such as fashions or professional sports. I'm frugal and somewhat a minimalist, much like Einstein was.
If the previous poster wanted to ascribe a value to abnormality (in his case, the value was "undesirable"), then so be it. He may also find value in watching sports, or reading about the latest fashion trends. I don't.

Holy Roller said:

Like I told you in the PM, I am indifferent to these things. Things that have meaning to other people go by me without my noticing, such as fashions or professional sports. I'm frugal and somewhat a minimalist, much like Einstein was.
If the previous poster wanted to ascribe a value to abnormality (in his case, the value was "undesirable"), then so be it. He may also find value in watching sports, or reading about the latest fashion trends. I don't.

Click to expand...

I have received no such PM.

But I'm glad that, based on what you've said here, you would seem to agree that homosexuality is no more "abnormal" or negative than left-handedness.

Holy Roller said:

Why is it that when we identify a human activity that is clearly abnormal we are called homophobes? Can't we just be called the people who identify abnormal human behavior?

Click to expand...

It's one thing to think to yourself, gee, that doesn't seem very normal, now does it? Just as I don't think it's normal to be sexually excited by vomiting into someone's mouth, but some people enjoy it immensely. If a law ever came up that stated people who have a regurgitation fetish would not be legally permitted to marry because their relationship is "abnormal", I wouldn't vote in favor of said law. What people do is their business. Not mine. I don't care who gets married so long as consenting adults are involved. I could care less if it's one man, one woman; two men; two women; two women and a man, etc. The only reason to be opposed to the extent of voting to pass a law that prohibits consenting adults the right to marry would be based on a phobia of some sort.

KatAutumn said:

It's one thing to think to yourself, gee, that doesn't seem very normal, now does it? Just as I don't think it's normal to be sexually excited by vomiting into someone's mouth, but some people enjoy it immensely. If a law ever came up that stated people who have a regurgitation fetish would not be legally permitted to marry because their relationship is "abnormal", I wouldn't vote in favor of said law. What people do is their business. Not mine. I don't care who gets married so long as consenting adults are involved. I could care less if it's one man, one woman; two men; two women; two women and a man, etc. The only reason to be opposed to the extent of voting to pass a law that prohibits consenting adults the right to marry would be based on a phobia of some sort.

Click to expand...

We live in a democracy. Some people will participate in that process and some won't (there's research that indicates the democratic process is genetic--half-baked sounding, I know). I will, and I'll vote for or against whatever and whomever I think will best serve the democracy.

I'm voting for:

Obama/Biden
Proposition 8
Proposition 4
Proposition 2

Against:
Most things Republican, whatever they may be.

Holy Roller said:

We live in a democracy. Some people will participate in that process and some won't (there's research that indicates the democratic process is genetic--half-baked sounding, I know). I will, and I'll vote for or against whatever and whomever I think will best serve the democracy.

I'm voting for:

Obama/Biden
Proposition 8
Proposition 4
Proposition 2

Against:
Most things Republican, whatever they may be.

Click to expand...

Correction: We (in the US) live in a constitutional republic. That means that some things (like basic rights and equality under law) are protected from majority vote.

Holy Roller said:

Because procreation is more than just a nine-month process.

Procreation is a two-step process, as I illustrated above:

1. The first step in procreation is the first 9 months.
2. Procreation would be meaningless unless the child is taken care of after the birth. For this reason, the second step of procreation involves the raising of the child up until his or her 18th year.

Both require the gender difference.

Click to expand...

Well, this is clearly not true. Many children have been raised by single parents, and have turned out just fine. In my country, gay couples are allowed to adopt.

jeffinj said:

Californians, please vote yes on proposition 8.

Click to expand...

OK

Holy Roller said:

We live in a democracy. Some people will participate in that process and some won't (there's research that indicates the democratic process is genetic--half-baked sounding, I know). I will, and I'll vote for or against whatever and whomever I think will best serve the democracy.

I'm voting for:

Obama/Biden
Proposition 8
Proposition 4
Proposition 2

Against:
Most things Republican, whatever they may be.

Click to expand...

Most things Republican represent freedoms for people that are honest, hardworking, and love the familiy concept of societal life.

Be careful of propaganda politics. Right now, slick Hollywood productions are driving a radical anti-freedom "change" for America.

Just watch and listen to the intense vitirol aganst Palin by the media.

QuakerOats said:

In the words of Dr. Evil, "How about, no, Scott? Okay?"

Honestly, if I could vote in the American election, I would vote against proposition eight because I find the reasoning behind it to be mostly, if not wholly, religious in nature. Totally unfounded.

Click to expand...

So, religious people are not part of a democracy?

So preferred personal sex acts, is a more important belief system than basing ones life and morals on a religion?

Please enlighten me?

Preferred personal sex acts are not necessarily immoral. Many people would agree that they are not immoral if they cause no harm to other people. Not everyone agree with you that the Bible is the only source of morality; some of us believe that the Bible has very little claim to being called a source of morality at all. Are you enlightened now?

So, religious people are not part of a democracy?

Click to expand...

Of course they are, but you can't deny rights to another based purely on a relgious belief.

Polycarp_fan said:

So, religious people are not part of a democracy?

So preferred personal sex acts, is a more important belief system than basing ones life and morals on a religion?

Please enlighten me?

Click to expand...

Who voted to allow your legal marriage?

Polycarp_fan said:

So, religious people are not part of a democracy?

So preferred personal sex acts, is a more important belief system than basing ones life and morals on a religion?

Please enlighten me?

Click to expand...

When it comes to legislation, yes. Legislating laws based on religion is a bias and seperation of church and state is then violated.