In response to:

Debating Same-Sex Marriage

du2 Wrote: Jun 08, 2012 9:04 PM
con't: the reality is, that parent and NON parent couples coexist under the same basic requirements of marriage. And gay couples MEET those standards. Denying it, doesn't help anyone's argument here. Not even for it's own sake. It's not evidence that gay couples don't deserve to marry, it's just evidence of resistance to the truth. And that is irrelevant. We coexist as religious and not. Old and young, rich and poor, educated and not, parent or not, and all other forms of diverse and REASONABLE standards of being a citizen. Do I have to repeat again that gay people are part of the law abiding tax base, so therefore that alone qualifies equal treatment that goes with their equal responsibility? Homosexuality isn't anti social, bigotry is.
GinLA Wrote: Jun 09, 2012 4:04 AM
It's quite clear that you didn't even come close to responding to the arguments against same sex marriage. It's undeniably true that, in the case of children, when any other type of relationship is put up against the biological parents, there is no contest. The children almost always grow up much better with both biological parents. When you deliberately deny the mother or father you end up with a child who is inappropriately deprived of a biological connection that affects then negatively. Despite there not being "tests" to qualify there is still, in the definition of marriage, certain boundaries: age, number of partners, kinship, sex....these boundaries are necessary to the protection of children, men, women, and society as a whole.
du2 Wrote: Jun 10, 2012 1:22 PM
@GinLA, I already said, there literally are no boundaries for parenthood because there are no morality or competence tests required to be one, except in some cases of adoption. Gender and orientation ALONE are not indicators of either, that's why. We have no laws that deny marriage to NON PARENTS, so it's no defense to discriminate against gay couples for NOT having children. And again, why should the CHILDREN of gay parents matter LESS in legally protecting them, because of the gender and orientation of their parents. Those children need THAT more than discrimination. And this kind of discrimination doesn't work to the ends and means you're talking about anyway. Ever think of that?
du2 Wrote: Jun 10, 2012 1:27 PM
Gay parents are not so profoundly isolated from the opposite sex, that their children are as deprived of such an experience as you'd like to think. Het parents have gay children, and gay parents have het children. So the relevance of gender ISN'T as necessary as a means of rightful discrimination for that reason. THESE are facts, not opinion. The only difference is that gay parents aren't so RIGID with regard to gender, something that's artificially enforced to the detriment of individual ability and character by what you support. You have no case for discrimination, because it's impossible to enforce what role gender is going to play in individual homes anyway. Do you EVER think past such narrow and unrealistic ideals?
du2 Wrote: Jun 10, 2012 1:39 PM
@GinLA, I already said, there literally are no boundaries for parenthood because there are no morality or competence tests required to be one, except in some cases of adoption. Gender and orientation ALONE are not indicators of either, that's why. We have no laws that deny marriage to NON PARENTS, so it's no defense to discriminate against gay couples for NOT having children. And again, why should the CHILDREN of gay parents matter LESS in legally protecting them, because of the gender and orientation of their parents. Those children need THAT more than discrimination. And this kind of discrimination doesn't work to the ends and means you're talking about anyway. Ever think of that?
du2 Wrote: Jun 10, 2012 1:44 PM
And Gin, I ALWAYS answer, forthrightly and with irrefutable facts on this issue. For years now. As do a handful of others FAR more knowledgable, not just about LEGAL facts, but sociological ones. Repeating that there is a long history of prejudice against gay people, doesn't mean it was EVER justified and should remain. There IS no discrimination against adults to marry, based on not being able to conceive children. FACT.
There is no state morality or competence test to marry. Nor test that requires one must be biologically the parent of a child to marry. FACT
This is why your defense falls flat on illogical and irrational standards for gay people. NOBODY else has the requirements to marry YOU are using as a defense for discrimination.
Kevlar Wrote: Jun 08, 2012 11:24 PM
"parent and NON parent couples coexist under the same basic requirements of marriage...
and gay couples MEET those standards"

Go Hemp!

How many hits does it take to misunderstand the core of marriage...the multigender part?
du2 Wrote: Jun 10, 2012 1:31 PM
Apparently for you, Kev...none. You have displayed how little you understand about gender and orientation a great deal in these forums. You have a lot to say, but to those of us MUCH better informed and experienced, and there are a few of US who are, you are far from reasonable, let alone logical.
Even more the reason not to put the fate of gay people in your voting ability and why no court should indulge you.

This week, the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to hear any more arguments on gay marriage.

Appellate Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain's dissent was scathing: "Based on a two-judge majority's gross misapplication of Romer v. Evans, we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign state to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia," he said. Worse, the judge went on, the decision overrules the votes of 7 million Californians based on an interpretation of Romer v. Evans that would be "unrecognizable" to those who wrote it.

Serendipitously, this...