Gay Marriage Down in Flames!

You have yet to explain how the likelihood of children being raised by both biological parents would in any way be affected by gay marriage.

We have three scenarios:

  1. Children already born to straight parents. We have already agreed these children are completely unaffected by gay marriage, regarding the likelihood of being raised by their biological parents.

  2. Children that will be born in the future to straight parents. The identical logic applies here that applies in point #1. These children are completely unaffected by gay marriage as well, since they will either be raised by their straight parents or put into a foster care facility. The existence of gay marriage has zero bearing on this scenario, just as in #1.

  3. Children that will be born through surrogacy involving a gay parent. If gay marriage didn’t exist, these children would still have the zero chance of being raised by both biological parents. The surrogate mother isn’t going to shack up with the gay father just because gay marriage doesn’t exist.

In all three scenarios, the NET MATH is ZERO. There is absolutely no effect whatsoever of gay marriage on the likelihood of children being raised by both biological parents.

If you dispute this, provide specific logical arguments on why. Otherwise, quit claiming that gay marriage has any effect on children being raised by both biological parents. Clearly, it does not.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Oh, but I forget, it’s all a plot by the gay army.

Damn pink berets.[/quote]

I asked for one when I sat on Santa’s lap this year.

Looks like the UN will be considering condemnation of gay discrimination in conjunction with the 60th anniversary of its support for human rights. Not surprisingly, the declaration is opposed by the Catholic church.

Guess it is better to foster the imprisonment and execution of gays, than to risk allowing the militant perverts to marry one another:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Looks like the UN will be considering condemnation of gay discrimination in conjunction with the 60th anniversary of its support for human rights. Not surprisingly, the declaration is opposed by the Catholic church.

Guess it is better to foster the imprisonment and execution of gays, than to risk allowing the militant perverts to marry one another:

Yesterday, it was reported that the Vatican stated its opposition to a UN declaration formally condemning discrimination against gays because doing so would pressure nations which do not recognize same-sex unions to do so. The resolution, which the Vatican claims would “de-criminalize” same-sex unions, is set to be introduced by France on December 10th at the UN General Assembly, on the 60th anniversary of the UN declaration of human rights.[/quote]

From what you posted it looks like france is trying to present it to the general assembly, not that it is actually being supported byt he UN as of yet.

[quote]forlife wrote:
You have yet to explain how the likelihood of children being raised by both biological parents would in any way be affected by gay marriage.

We have three scenarios:

  1. Children already born to straight parents. We have already agreed these children are completely unaffected by gay marriage, regarding the likelihood of being raised by their biological parents.

  2. Children that will be born in the future to straight parents. The identical logic applies here that applies in point #1. These children are completely unaffected by gay marriage as well, since they will either be raised by their straight parents or put into a foster care facility. The existence of gay marriage has zero bearing on this scenario, just as in #1.

  3. Children that will be born through surrogacy involving a gay parent. If gay marriage didn’t exist, these children would still have the zero chance of being raised by both biological parents. The surrogate mother isn’t going to shack up with the gay father just because gay marriage doesn’t exist.

In all three scenarios, the NET MATH is ZERO. There is absolutely no effect whatsoever of gay marriage on the likelihood of children being raised by both biological parents.

If you dispute this, provide specific logical arguments on why. Otherwise, quit claiming that gay marriage has any effect on children being raised by both biological parents. Clearly, it does not.

[/quote]

I would say it is more the impact it has on the children themselves which in turn will have on society. We can this already.

They grow thinking it is normal and ok and then they push it on the rest of us.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Looks like the UN will be considering condemnation of gay discrimination in conjunction with the 60th anniversary of its support for human rights. Not surprisingly, the declaration is opposed by the Catholic church.

Guess it is better to foster the imprisonment and execution of gays, than to risk allowing the militant perverts to marry one another:

Yesterday, it was reported that the Vatican stated its opposition to a UN declaration formally condemning discrimination against gays because doing so would pressure nations which do not recognize same-sex unions to do so. The resolution, which the Vatican claims would “de-criminalize” same-sex unions, is set to be introduced by France on December 10th at the UN General Assembly, on the 60th anniversary of the UN declaration of human rights.[/quote]

How about a document that simply condemns jailing and killing? Instead, it’s reported to have language condemning “discrimination” based on orientation and “gender identity.”

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I would say it is more the impact it has on the children themselves which in turn will have on society. We can this already.

They grow thinking it is normal and ok and then they push it on the rest of us.[/quote]

And push it on us? You can’t convince people to just give up liking a gender. I like women, that’s not going away. The only people who will change their sexuality are the ones who are really confused.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
How about a document that simply condemns jailing and killing? Instead, it’s reported to have language condemning “discrimination” based on orientation and “gender identity.” [/quote]

That would be a start, but don’t you think it would be even better to discourage all discrimination?

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
How about a document that simply condemns jailing and killing? Instead, it’s reported to have language condemning “discrimination” based on orientation and “gender identity.”

That would be a start, but don’t you think it would be even better to discourage all discrimination?[/quote]

Well, no. The UN doesn’t need to be in the business of pressuring nations into legalizing homosexual marriage. When THEY decide to get serious, they’ll introduce a more focused condemnation against anti-homosexual violence and imprisonment. In the meantime, the Vatican has spoken out in no uncertain terms against such things.

[quote]forlife wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Oh, but I forget, it’s all a plot by the gay army.

Damn pink berets.

I asked for one when I sat on Santa’s lap this year. [/quote]

Lets hope your boyfriend doesn’t hear about that…

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Been covered ad nauseum. Plain and simple, government recognition that every committed monogomous relationship is the same and deserves the same benefits irrespective of the participants’ genders does not compell recognition of a relationship with the dog or the lampshade. Nor does a determination that gay marriage does not pose a threat to traditional heterosexual marriage compell the conclusion that polygamous marriages do not.

You are somehow ignoring the rest of my post in which I stated that this analysis and burden of proof on the goverment would not be required upon a holding that the scope of the fundamental right of marriage is limited to those of opposite genders. Except that the universal concensus implied by you that this is the case does not exist.

But the people have spoken the government doesn’t have a right to overrule the people that was the whole premise of America. Not the perversion we see today.[/quote]

One of the purposes of the Constitution is to ensure that the tyranny of the majority can’t oppress the minority and eliminate fundamental rights. That’s certainly the purpose of the 14th amendment. The only issue is whether the fundamental right or marriage encompasses the right to choose the gender of the spouse. If so, it doesn’t matter whether a majority of the people approve or not. There are good arguments on both sides.

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Been covered ad nauseum. Plain and simple, government recognition that every committed monogomous relationship is the same and deserves the same benefits irrespective of the participants’ genders does not compell recognition of a relationship with the dog or the lampshade. Nor does a determination that gay marriage does not pose a threat to traditional heterosexual marriage compell the conclusion that polygamous marriages do not.

You are somehow ignoring the rest of my post in which I stated that this analysis and burden of proof on the goverment would not be required upon a holding that the scope of the fundamental right of marriage is limited to those of opposite genders. Except that the universal concensus implied by you that this is the case does not exist.

But the people have spoken the government doesn’t have a right to overrule the people that was the whole premise of America. Not the perversion we see today.[/quote]

This would not even be an issue if California’s political system wasn’t so fucked. It extends well beyond the immediate debate.

A bare majority should not be able to amend the Constitution. This renders the Constitution meaningless and a slave to the public fancy of the moment. It’s special interests who scream the loudest, campaign the hardest, and spend the most money that win. Whether it’s the Mormons, the gays, or the little green men from Mars.

[quote]forlife wrote:

If you dispute this, provide specific logical arguments on why.[/quote]

Already have, and that is so despite your unwillingness to read what I have written.

One question: will there be more children raised by gay couples if gay marriage is enacted?

Yes or no?

You insist on lumping all situations where children aren’t being raised by their biological parents into one category, and thus, gay marriage wouldn’t affect “the math” of those children - it would merely shift where the children were raised.

I do not. Enacting gay marriage as an equal legal institution will, as repeated too many times, undermine marriage’s goals of keeping the biological family together. We need to reduce the number of kids that are outside of that unit, and creating out of whole cloth an “equal” institution with all the same benefits, etc. creates the same package of incentives to raise a child as traditional marriage does.

What does that mean? When you institute an alternative institution (or institutions), you send a message that in terms of family structures, “any of the above” are satisfactory. Traditional marriage does not reinforce that message, and in fact, rejects it outright. These are competing policy directives whose goals are not the same.

Marriage policy is designed to send the message: “if you create a child, stay together for the good of the child, don’t give the child away. The biological family is better than anything else, and because it is, we honor it especially so you will do it.” With gay marriage, the message is altered: “if you create a child, stay together, or find an “equal” family arrangement and give the child to them - either one is fine.”

Straightforwardly - gay marriage undermines the message of traditional marriage. We don’t want biological parents thinking there is any “equal” alternative out there to marrying one another and raising the child in a family of the biological parents. If you create that “equal” alternative, more parents will have the incentive to go that route instead of getting married - precisely and exactly what we don’t want from a policy perspective.

This does even go to the issue that gay couples would be more likely to engage in surrogacy if provided gay marriage. You couch in terms that almost sound like surrogacy happens “by accident”, and whistle past the real issue by saying “well, of course the mom wouldn’t marry the gay father”. That isn’t the point - the point is more gays would intentionally create more children if given gay marriage.

Though obvious, you won’t admit it, because it hurts your arguments the way you have structured them. But here is the point - we don’t want gays to engage in more surrogacy, so there is no reason to incentivize the practice.

Children don’t just “come into this world” - there is an active act to bring them in. We have no desire to incentivize or encourage this behavior - see traditional marriage.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Been covered ad nauseum. Plain and simple, government recognition that every committed monogomous relationship is the same and deserves the same benefits irrespective of the participants’ genders does not compell recognition of a relationship with the dog or the lampshade. Nor does a determination that gay marriage does not pose a threat to traditional heterosexual marriage compell the conclusion that polygamous marriages do not.

You are somehow ignoring the rest of my post in which I stated that this analysis and burden of proof on the goverment would not be required upon a holding that the scope of the fundamental right of marriage is limited to those of opposite genders. Except that the universal concensus implied by you that this is the case does not exist.

But the people have spoken the government doesn’t have a right to overrule the people that was the whole premise of America. Not the perversion we see today.

This would not even be an issue if California’s political system wasn’t so fucked. It extends well beyond the immediate debate.

A bare majority should not be able to amend the Constitution. This renders the Constitution meaningless and a slave to the public fancy of the moment. It’s special interests who scream the loudest, campaign the hardest, and spend the most money that win. Whether it’s the Mormons, the gays, or the little green men from Mars. [/quote]

You said it. It is these special interst groups that get laws passed so that it is no longer equal treatment but special treatment.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

Nice dodge of my three scenarios rather than addressing them as I asked. I’ll show you more respect and answer your question.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
One question: will there be more children raised by gay couples if gay marriage is enacted?

Yes or no?[/quote]

I think there is a good chance that more children will be raised by gay couples if gay marriage is allowed. I don’t know, but certainly hope so. We do know that the children being raised by gay parents will be better off if their parents are married than if they are not.

That is false on two grounds:

  1. In both cases, the message is that parents (whether gay or straight) should stay together for the benefit of the child. Marriage is designed to foster the longevity of that union, through the benefits and penalties associated with it. Same message, regardless of gender orientation.

  2. Saying that “the biological family is better than anything else” is a crass overgeneralization, because many children are not being raised by their biological family, with GOOD CAUSE, due to a home environment that is abusive or otherwise unable to meet their needs. These children are far better off being raised by gay parents in a loving, stable home environment.

Where do you get this? Why the hell would straight parents have the incentive not to marry by virtue of allowing gays to marry? That makes zero sense.

So you think it is better for a child not to be born at all than to be raised by gay parents? I asked this before and you never answered.

Now how about addressing my three scenarios? Please explain how the likelihood of children being raised by their biological parents is in any way affected by gay marriage?

Note: I didn’t ask for you to explain the likelihood of more children being raised by gays.

Hopefully you see the difference. Shifting them from one nontraditional category to another doesn’t result in an increase as you continue trying to claim.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
forlife and some of the other liberals on this thread just don’t get it. We don’t want gays to marry, it’s a perversion which should not be embraced by the state.

You guys are thick … ha ha.

[/quote]

Perversion according to who? You?

I still think its a choice…my girlfriend (for lack of a better term we going through stuff right now) was in a lesbian relationship when I met her. She went through a period were she only had sex with other women.

When she was 12 she told me later on, she was repaetedly raped by her father (i think this strongly had something to do with her being a lesbian for a while).

Now she tells me over and over that she is no longer that way and she just likes men now. So if she can just stop being that way, then i suspect a lot of others can to, because if she was born that way she would be that way regardless of whether I was in the picture or not.

In fact she left her girlfriend because her girlfriend didnt like tht fact that she was talking to me (i was having sex with her while she was with her girlfriend).

The point is if she was born like that she would still be like that, you wont be able to turn it on and off.

[quote]clip11 wrote:
I still think its a choice…my girlfriend (for lack of a better term we going through stuff right now) was in a lesbian relationship when I met her. She went through a period were she only had sex with other women.

When she was 12 she told me later on, she was repaetedly raped by her father (i think this strongly had something to do with her being a lesbian for a while).

Now she tells me over and over that she is no longer that way and she just likes men now. So if she can just stop being that way, then i suspect a lot of others can to, because if she was born that way she would be that way regardless of whether I was in the picture or not.

In fact she left her girlfriend because her girlfriend didnt like tht fact that she was talking to me (i was having sex with her while she was with her girlfriend).

The point is if she was born like that she would still be like that, you wont be able to turn it on and off.[/quote]

Lol. That’s until you come home to find a woman in bed with her. Just hope they let you join.

Anyhow, the fact that your girlfriend was scared of penises doesn’t mean she was EVER actually a lesbian or attracted to women. She just felt safer and less threatened having an intimate relationship with a woman at that time.