vote yes on proposition 8

[wanderingone]

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

Hmm.. but... if my real estate agent and her partner got together primarily because they both wanted to raise children and didn't want to do it alone then they are fulfilling part 2 of your little procreation doctrine. (Personally I hope my husband didn't marry me because he viewed me as his personal incubator)

 

[wanderingone]

Because Mother Nature demands it of us.
Remember, when considering the topic such as marriage, we must consider only the rule, never the exception.
When we start asking things like, "Why can't I marry a hippopotamus? A hippo will keep my kid warm just like a wife can" we are introducing exceptions to the ideal rule, which detracts from good lawmaking.

There you go worshipping Gaia again.
------------------------
We're talking kids here now.. not marriage.
The fact that children grow up in families with single parents or with same sex parents prove there is not gender difference required for a child to be raised to the age of 18.

 

[Staccato]

Because Mother Nature demands it of us.
Remember, when considering the topic such as marriage, we must consider only the rule, never the exception.
When we start asking things like, "Why can't I marry a hippopotamus? A hippo will keep my kid warm just like a wife can" we are introducing exceptions to the ideal rule, which detracts from good lawmaking.

...what?

Are you saying that a single parent cannot adequately raise a child because the gender difference of the parent does not exist?

 

[Holy Roller]

There you go worshipping Gaia again.
------------------------
We're talking kids here now.. not marriage.
The fact that children grow up in families with single parents or with same sex parents prove there is not gender difference required for a child to be raised to the age of 18.

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.

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

 

[wanderingone]

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.

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

Which has nothing to do with my post.

Please stop claiming a similarity between attraction to other humans and attraction to non human animals.

and please explain your calling on gaia as the ruler over our lives.

 

[Holy Roller]

...what?

Are you saying that a single parent cannot adequately raise a child because the gender difference of the parent does not exist?

This is ad hominem thinking. Can you rephrase the question?

(Ad hominem thinking manifests itself when someone who wants medical marijuana to be legal gets accused of being a drug trafficker.)

 

[wanderingone]

This is ad hominem thinking. Can you rephrase the question?

(Ad hominem thinking manifests itself when someone who wants medical marijuana to be legal gets accused of being a drug trafficker.)

Personally I'm wondering which of mother earth's herbs you've been indulging in.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

Why does the second require a male and a female? Numerous studies over the past four decades have consistently shown same-sex couples are just as good at raising children as opposite-sex couples. Indeed, children raised by female-female couples show a slight statistical advantage over those raised by male-female and male-male couples.

So yeah, why can't gay couples raise kids?

 

[Holy Roller]

Which has nothing to do with my post.

Please stop claiming a similarity between attraction to other humans and attraction to non human animals.

and please explain your calling on gaia as the ruler over our lives.

I've got you to come around to my way of thinking. All you have to do now is acquiesce.

 

[keith99]

I've read quite a bit of C.S. Lewis. He has spoken several times on marriage. (Perhaps in Screwtape?). Yes I am almost sure it is Screwtape. He was contrasting the idea of 'being in love' as the modern reason for marriage with other older reasons, like mutual support. I think he mentions prodgeny, but I'm not sure and I am sure it was not the only reason. I'll try to look it up.

Here it is:

The error is easy to produce because
"being in love" does very often, in Western Europe, precede marriages which are
made in obedience to the Enemy's designs, that is, with the intention of
fidelity, fertility and good will; just as religious emotion very often, but not
always, attends conversion. In other words, the humans are to be encouraged to
regard as the basis for marriage a highly-coloured and distorted version of
something the Enemy really promises as its result. Two advantages follow. In the
first place, humans who have not the gift of continence can be deterred from
seeking marriage as a solution because they do not find themselves "in love",
and, thanks to us, the idea of marrying with any other motive seems to them low
and cynical. Yes, they think that. They regard the intention of loyalty to a
partnership for mutual help, for the preservation of chastity, and for the
transmission of life, as something lower than a storm of emotion.

Actually rereading this I am amused as much of the anti 8 commercials use the theme that people should be allowed to marry who they want (who they love).

 

[Holy Roller]

Why does the second require a male and a female? Numerous studies over the past four decades have consistently shown same-sex couples are just as good at raising children as opposite-sex couples. Indeed, children raised by female-female couples show a slight statistical advantage over those raised by male-female and male-male couples.

So yeah, why can't gay couples raise kids?

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.

 

[Staccato]

This is ad hominem thinking. Can you rephrase the question?

(Ad hominem thinking manifests itself when someone who wants medical marijuana to be legal gets accused of being a drug trafficker.)

Thanks for the debate class.

To rephrase, you 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.

As a single parent is either male or female, and not both, they do not possess the gender difference you say is required to raise a child.

Can you please explain how this is not equal to you saying that they can't raise the child?

 

[Washington]

Because Mother Nature demands it of us.

Today 26.7% of all households are single parent households. Seems a lot of people are thumbing their noses at Mother Nature's demands and are getting away with it.

source

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Because Mother Nature demands it of us.
Remember, when considering the topic such as marriage, we must consider only the rule, never the exception.
When we start asking things like, "Why can't I marry a hippopotamus? A hippo will keep my kid warm just like a wife can" we are introducing exceptions to the ideal rule, which detracts from good lawmaking.

Then stop bringing up such silly strawmen and address the specifics, i.e. a single parent or two same sex parents are just as capable of bringing up a well balanced, well adjusted child as two opposite sex parents.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

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.

So... we shouldn't let homosexuals adopt because of the reaction from bigots?

Seems that just maybe the appropriate response is to educate and change the bigotry, maybe, rather than restrict the rights of the persecuted group? Hmmm?

 

[wanderingone]

I've read quite a bit of C.S. Lewis. He has spoken several times on marriage. (Perhaps in Screwtape?). Yes I am almost sure it is Screwtape. He was contrasting the idea of 'being in love' as the modern reason for marriage with other older reasons, like mutual support. I think he mentions prodgeny, but I'm not sure and I am sure it was not the only reason. I'll try to look it up.

Here it is:



Actually rereading this I am amused as much of the anti 8 commercials use the theme that people should be allowed to marry who they want (who they love).

Are you saying that a partnership for mutual support does not/can not = being in love? (and do you mean progeny? prodgeny is the name of a company someone I know works for-doesn't the part of the quote that says transmission of life mean for the purpose of reproducing?)

Still not sure why any of this matters. Legal marriage is a contract that does not require the marrying couple to explain their individual reasons. If the individual reasons later reveal that someone was lied to, or that the marriage was entered into as a means to commit fraud against another party then it can be legally annulled but otherwise if we're marrying because we love each other, or because we want to mutually support each other for life, or because we want to have babies nobody providing the license cares.

 

[Holy Roller]

Then stop bringing up such silly strawmen and address the specifics, i.e. a single parent or two same sex parents are just as capable of bringing up a well balanced, well adjusted child as two opposite sex parents.

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.

 

[jcook922]

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.

I'd hate to agree with you HR, but I took a ton of flak in a News & Current Events thread about a proposition regarding a school for gays. I stated that bullies are a part of human nature and won't go away, and didn't mysteriously appear in schools when gays started turning up. I pretty much got my head torn off when I stated my position of "Suck it up and quit being such a wuss." Now kids want to answer bullying with school shootings and suicide, what the hell?

 

[Holy Roller]

I'd hate to agree with you HR, but I took a ton of flak in a News & Current Events thread about a proposition regarding a school for gays. I stated that bullies are a part of human nature and won't go away, and didn't mysteriously appear in schools when gays started turning up. I pretty much got my head torn off when I stated my position of "Suck it up and quit being such a wuss." Now kids want to answer bullying with school shootings and suicide, what the hell?

Prop 8 writers may want to bring up the issue of gradeschool bullies and how they will cause grief, alcoholism and emotional devastation in the adult child of gay parents, but this is the incorrect route to take (it's a valid reason against raising kids in a gay household, but an incorrect approach nonetheless).
Prop 8 writers must continue sending artillery along the lines of procreation and send infantry along the lines of permitting only the ideal.

 

[keith99]

Are you saying that a partnership for mutual support does not/can not = being in love?

I am to a degree agreeing with Lewis in saying 'Being in love' is a poor reason for marriage. Lewis went on to make clear that 'being in love' as he used it was talking about the sexual infatuatioon that occurs during courtship and is an emotional state that is rarely if ever maintained. It surely is something that at least to some degree waxes and wanes.

remember this was in Screwtape and Screwtape went on to say that his side was working on convincing humans that no longer 'being in love' was a valid reason to divorce.

BTW I could argue that my parents were still very much in love until my fathers death. I could argue the same for my mothers parents. But in both cases this love was something deeper than an emotional state.