Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban

I thought I was answering that question.The main thrust of the states support of marriage has to do with procreation and child rearing. Things which are of supreme benefit to the progression of the state.Gay marriage cannot produce children nor can it rear children in an arguably superior male/female domain (all things considered)

I have a son.I hope he's not gay. My main reason for doing so is that I'm quite certain he would have considerable pain and unhappiness in his life as a result of being gay that he would not have if he's straight. I will admit, secondarily, that I would be disappointed, in that it would be unlikely that he would have any natural born children, that I wouldn't have any grandchildren to spoil in my dotage.However, that being said, if my son were to come to me tomorrow and tell me he's gay, I'd hug him, tell him how much I loved him, how his homosexuality made no difference to me, that I will always love him, and that I wished only for his happiness in life. I would never, NEVER let him see anything in me other than acceptance and love. He'd never know of my disappointment, or of my fears for his future.The hopes that I would have for my son wouldn't appreciably change. I'd still hope for his happiness. I'd hope that he would find someone he loves and that loves him to make a happy life together. I'd hope that he would get everything in life that he wanted.Now, if you can find any bigotry in there, you're working with a completely different definition of the word than the rest of the world uses.How would you answer your own question, HM?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

That doesn't answer the question at all.How would allowing gay marriages change anything? The government could continue to give the same benefits to marriage that it does now. Those benefits would continue to go to some couples that will never have children. Some of those couples would be gay.How would heterosexual marriage change in any way?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

On the one hand the unconditional love of a father - he's a lucky son. But this is debate..If he said he wanted to marry you? Anything about the institution of marriage that wouldn't be up for negotiation to your mind?

quote:

---

If he said he wanted to marry you? Anything about the institution of marriage that wouldn't be up for negotiation to your mind?

---

I'll respond to this imbecilic question as soon as you quote to me where in this thread anyone discusses the issue of parent/child marriage.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

The concept of marriage is a societal issue. By making marriage a legal matter the government is forcing society to alter societal mores to a common standard. And as always when government tries to fix a perceived problem, the "law of unintended consequences" proves that it is still the highest law of the land regardless of which direction pendulums and people swing.

The system is child centred at root. Anomalies occur and should not be seen as something to be encouraged or promoted - given that the state sees it as beneficial to have kids and kids brought up in the arguably ideal male/female scenarioCouples who cannot but want to have kids can be seen to be benefitting without their willing to benefit. The state might be argued to take a compassionate view in that case. Although strictly within its rights to withhold benefits.Folk who benefit but who chose hands down not to reciprocate the states provision can be seen as "sponging" (parasiting) from the state. The state choses not to act in this case.If gays wanted marriage they might consider it without the benefits and protections that accrue from the states provision associated with child procreation and rearing. There are no compassionate reasons for benefitting from state protection and no reason to introduce more "spongers""Sponging" should not be seen as a necessarily pejorative term. Given the states "desire" however, a willed refusal to engage in quid pro quo should attract an appropriate term. It doesn't matter much what it is, so long as the protection and benefits don't accrue to the non-conforming position.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Perhaps the case of the "son" of a gay couple marrying one of the "parents"Any objection?

Actually, people made marriage a legal issue by getting divorced and asking the courts, a governmental function, to step in to clean things up. The government needed to establish a standardized contract so that it might have a starting point. Could you for a second imagine if the courts had to use the rules of the thousand different churches to resolve dissolved marriages?Edited by lyx2no, : Supply URLEdited by lyx2no, : Supplied wrong URL.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

Okay, so it sounds like you are tacitly acknowledging that heterosexual marriage won't change at all, but instead you're complaining that those who aren't putting a greater burden on governmental services by introducing more people into the world should somehow be considered sponges, and thus denied one of the most basic and fundamental human rights, the right to decide how to structure one's familial relationships.Oh, and you're ignoring the fact that homosexual couples can in fact have children by adoption or with the assistance of another person from outside the couple to provide the necessary missing biological component.Am I missing anything?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Still waiting until you quote where in this thread anyone was talking about the issue of parent/child marriage. I'm not following you off topic just to humor your inability to stay on topic.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

State reasons for support of the institution of marriage are currently and traditionally child-focussed. If you want to argue that we should "go chinese" for reasons of world over-population then fire away. You wouldn't be arguing against marriage but for something else that is not marriage. A rose by any other name..Rights are what you are given by the State you live in. Not what you assume you should have.

quote:

---

On the one hand the unconditional love of a father - he's a lucky son.

---

Here's another thought. You recognize my hopes for my son as unconditional love. You style yourself as a christian. Why don't you have that same kind of unconditional love for all people, as christ told you to have? And, if you claim that you do, how in the world can you reconcile that love with a desire to deny them the right to happiness?I'm pretty sure the bible doesn't say, "Love your straight neighbors, but don't let the queers get married."

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

State reasons for support of the institution of marriage are currently and traditionally child-focussed.

---

Not entirely, but I'll accept the premise for now.Those reasons apply to some homosexual couples, could potentially apply to any homosexual couple, and don't apply to some heterosexual couples. Doesn't seem like you've really advanced your argument very far.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Not yet huh? Well, I never said that you had. Nonetheless, the thing is that seeking to prevent them from pursuing happy lives is harming them. By arguing against gay marriage you are enabling homophobia and bigotry and helping make other peoples lives that little bit more crappy. Certainly. Do you think that the California Supreme Court got this decision right? If not, where, in US law, do you think they got it wrong?

---

Mutate and Survive