Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Annee
 


Yeah right, we will see the crap start flying when the first judge laughs the first able-bodied gay male out of his courtroom for trying to seek alimoney. Able-bodied males are hardly ever granted alimoney in straight divorce cases, you think it will be any different in gay divorce?


I am aware of your participation in the following thread: Men and Child support. What is the answer?

Perhaps you can discuss gay dads and alimony in that thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
The modern concept of Marriage is less then 200 years old. Women were property - they had no rights. Marriages were arranged for political/social standing/alliances etc. It certainly wasn't romantic or strictly for procreation or about God.

Marriages were not for the rights of men or women but were in fact public agreements about the mating activities of two adults to protect children's security and to promote the role of fathers in the rearing of children. Study after study proves that children raised by both biological parents have a superior advantage from those that are not. Look at the statistics of those that are incarcerated or on welfare and compare that with children whose parents were in a traditional marriage.



It is a truism frequently forgotten by large complex societies:
only societies that reproduce survive.

Maggie Gallagher - What is Marriage For


The state has a vested interest in the paring of mates for reproduction. Laws exist to promote single partner unions of opposite sexes. Laws also exist to prevent men from creating competing families since that weakens the support children receive and increases the chances that one group of children could be raised without the father's impact. By the same token the state may offer tax incentives for those that choose to enter into such contracts just as it may grant tax favoritism to companies that it believes will strengthen the economy.

One can point out that same sex partners may have households with children. This is true of course but same sex partners can only raise children, they can not have them. Some of these children may have an actual economic advantage over typical children since a two male household would most likely have a higher income than a single male/female household. Odds are however that this will be the exception and not the normal. Children who live in households with two parents excluding one of their original parents fare no better than single mother household statistically.

I'm in favor of equal rights under equal circumstances. Everyone doesn't get to use the handicapped parking places but all handicapped people should have equal access to handicapped parking. Same sex unions are not the same as male/female unions. This isn't determined by the state. This is dictated by nature and no matter how many laws we pass this will remain unchanged.
edit on 15-6-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Study after study proves that children raised by both biological parents have a superior advantage from those that are not. Look at the statistics of those that are incarcerated or on welfare and compare that with children whose parents were in a traditional marriage.


Current studies show there is little to no difference in children raised by straight or gay.

Actually - - the edge goes to gay parents.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Current studies show there is little to no difference in children raised by straight or gay.


I'll concede that point but still argue that "only societies that reproduce survive". Gay parents can not reproduce. I'm all for them being happy and having a fulfilled life. I just don't think the state has any vested interest in promoting same-sex marriages. Perhaps you could make an exception and grant a marriage license to same sex partners with children. Outside of that I don't see the purpose.

EDIT: Please don't pretend science has solved this. Not one single person has been born without the use of the following items:
  • Male sperm
  • Female egg
  • Uterus
    edit on 15-6-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)



  • posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:22 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by dbates
    Look at the statistics of those that are incarcerated or on welfare and compare that with children whose parents were in a traditional marriage.


    That is very misleading.

    Look at the economic statistics of those in prison.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:27 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Annee
     

    Hmm. I think we have a disconnect. Either I didn't phrase that correctly or I didn't understand you. I meant that children who are on welfare or end up in prison are more likely to come from single family homes. Yes! There is an economic disadvantage to divorce and raising children outside of marriage.

    EDIT: True that many crimes are committed for economic gain.
    edit on 15-6-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:27 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by dbates

    Originally posted by Annee
    Current studies show there is little to no difference in children raised by straight or gay.


    I'll concede that point but still argue that "only societies that reproduce survive". Gay parents can not reproduce. I'm all for them being happy and having a fulfilled life. I just don't think the state has any vested interest in promoting same-sex marriages. Perhaps you could make an exception and grant a marriage license to same sex partners with children. Outside of that I don't see the purpose.



    There is nothing wrong with a gay persons reproductive system.

    They will need to use methods that hetero couples use who can not reproduce in the regular way.

    It is not the states business to be vested in anyone personal life - - is it?

    I am not understanding your exception. You tell me gays can't reproduce - - but grant marriage licenses to those who have?
    edit on 15-6-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:41 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Annee

    Originally posted by adifferentbreed
    reply to post by Annee
     


    Gimme a break....everyone wants equal rights, no matter what they are. It's simply not possible in a civilized world for everyone to be accepted legally, you keep dreaming but it doesn't make sense. Let me ask you this, whose rights and practices are you willing not to agree with or legalize? Surely there must be one group out there, as soon as you realize the folly of this adventure, let me know.


    Marriage involves 2 people joining together as one household/family/unit.

    LEGAL Government Marriage is what this thread is about. There is ZERO reason to deny a couple because they are of same gender.

    I am not taking it beyond that in this thread.

    If you want to expand/embellish in other areas beyond that - - start your own thread.




    That's not the definition of a marriage, yours is the definition of a legal union - two distinctly different things.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:42 PM
    link   
    reply to post by dbates
     


    I literally just left my doctor and all is happy in regards to my reproductive health. So, if a straight couple decides to marry, but have no desire to have children should their request to marry be denied? That's what it sounds like... If not, please clarify.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:45 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by leo123
    That's not the definition of a marriage, yours is the definition of a legal union - two distinctly different things.


    Name of LEGAL government license is: Marriage License.

    It is a LEGAL contract that affords certain rights - - not afforded by any other means.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:47 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Annee
    There is nothing wrong with a gay persons reproductive system.

    They will need to use methods that hetero couples use who can not reproduce in the regular way.

    That would mean that they pull in a 3rd party for reproduction. The fact that 100% of gay couples would need the help of science (and a 3rd person) seems to point to the fact that this isn't what nature intended. Even when it succeeds this has unintended negative repercussions for some of the children. Aside from the psychological risks children born through in vitro fertilization have a higher risk of cancer. Sure this risk might be low but it is not in the state's best interest to promote a lifestyle that elevates cancer risk.

    I suppose then we could develop science to selectively determine which fetus was more likely to have cancer and only keep those that did not. Now you're talking about something like the movie Gattaca. It's like George Orwell's nightmare come true.




    Originally posted by Annee
    It is not the states business to be vested in anyone personal life - - is it?

    No, but its interest is vested in society as a whole. We've already established the fact that only societies that reproduce survive.



    Originally posted by Annee
    I am not understanding your exception.


    I was just stating that perhaps a marriage contract could be granted same-sex couples that have acquired children through some means such as adoption or via a previous marriage.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:48 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by dbates

    Originally posted by Annee
    There is nothing wrong with a gay persons reproductive system.

    They will need to use methods that hetero couples use who can not reproduce in the regular way.

    That would mean that they pull in a 3rd party for reproduction.



    As do heteros who need that kind of method to reproduce.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:51 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by dbates
    The fact that 100% of gay couples would need the help of science (and a 3rd person) seems to point to the fact that this isn't what nature intended.


    That is not necessarily true. There is the old turkey baster for Lesbians.

    Sometimes a friend or relative will carry a child for a gay man. No science involved.

    There is also adoption. Plenty of unwanted kids out there. Oh - but that would involve a 3rd party.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:53 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by dbates
    has unintended negative repercussions for some of the children.


    Why?

    Because the parents are gay instead of straight?



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:53 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by dbates
    I'm in favor of equal rights under equal circumstances. Everyone doesn't get to use the handicapped parking places but all handicapped people should have equal access to handicapped parking. Same sex unions are not the same as male/female unions. This isn't determined by the state. This is dictated by nature and no matter how many laws we pass this will remain unchanged.
    edit on 15-6-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)


    So, who I sleep with creates unequal circumstances? The fact is, unless I tell you, you have no idea who I'm attracted to. You might be able to assume, but unless I confirm it is total speculation. My point is that (contrary to what many people may think) aside from gender there is very little difference in the interaction between gay couples and straight couples. I don't know what you guys think we get into when you aren't looking, but really it's no different.


    Regardless, I shouldn't be forced to use the handicapped marriage just because I'm gay. Should I use a separate water fountain also?
    edit on 15-6-2011 by Abrihetx because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:55 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Abrihetx
    if a straight couple decides to marry, but have no desire to have children should their request to marry be denied?

    That would be micro-management on the government's part. The state can't force you to have children. It can merely encourage what it sees as positive scenarios. There is a remote chance that they could end up having children. It is possible is it not?

    Most states have open container laws that prohibit open containers of alcoholic beverages in a car. The beverage could be just for the passenger. The driver might even have an allergic reaction to alcohol that medically keeps them from drinking but still the government is discouraging what it sees as a negative scenario. It is not feasible for the government to micro-manage every scenario and determine on a case by case basis who should or should not have an open container. It just says "no" to all. Same thing for marriage and the intent of children. The bureaucratic levels it would take to manage every single marriage for children would be too burdensome so a blanket "yes" this is a good scenario is given to all.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:56 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Annee
     

    You didn't read the article I linked. It had nothing to do with the sexual preferences of the parents.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:59 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Abrihetx
    So, who I sleep with creates unequal circumstances?

    Yes! If you are a woman and sleep with a man it is unequal with sleeping with a woman. Only one scenario can produce offspring. I'm merely pointing out that nature is playing favorites. This is not my opinion. Nature is the bigoted one here.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:59 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by dbates
    No, but its interest is vested in society as a whole. We've already established the fact that only societies that reproduce survive.


    I hardly think - at this time humans are in danger of not surviving by giving a 10% minority of the population equal rights

    Gay men have gotten women pregnant the old fashion way for centuries. Its not that they can't get a woman pregnant - - its that they shouldn't have to.



    posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:01 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by dbates
    reply to post by Annee
     

    You didn't read the article I linked. It had nothing to do with the sexual preferences of the parents.


    Point is - - you are finding articles to prove your point.

    I can just as easily find articles that have an opposing view.






    top topics



     
    20
    << 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

    log in

    join