Posted on November 21 at 8:12 a.m.

Ok, one last post because it addresses a point asked earlier, and then I am out.

So science, theoretically speaking, can make homosexual reproduction a viable option. I am not even going to estimate the effort in millions of dollars that would take. I can only imagine how expensive such gene therapy would cost. So let me make sure that I am clear, we are willing to spend millions of dollars and years of research to accomplish something that is done for free naturally by hetero couples? Brilliant.

Also, I never said propogation was impossible without marriage. That doesn't need comment nowadays. I simply put forth that it is the best way, the ideal way. I did say that propagation is impossible without heterosexual relations which is stating the obvious truth, fantastic science notwithstanding.

That my arguments are unconvincing to you binky is of no concern to me. My thoughts and sentiments are shared by the majority of Californians who voted for prop 8. My A game is just fine, thank you very much.

On Dear Prop. 8 Supporters

1 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on November 20 at 10:25 p.m.

I am going to repeat a phrase I said earlier: Dont be so open minded that your brain falls out. Forgive me for saying that I think most of your brains are on the floor. If you cannot see that marriage is a heterosexual union whose primary purpose is to populate society, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree. There are exceptions that you have raised (infertile couples, etc) but those are just that; exceptions. The common denominator in reproduction is that it is heterosexual in nature between two people who are of age. Therefore, the law mandates only this common denominator and leaves other things unsaid.

What is the purpose of sex biologically speaking? What function does it serve? Is it not primarily reproduction? True it serves other roles, but those are secondary. When the law gives recognition to a heterosexual couple I believe that it is implied they will mate. In fact, if mating never occurs, that marriage can be stricken off the records as invalid (the consumation laws mentioned earlier). Marriage as an institution developed as a means to stabilize the mating process in society, ALL societies. Every society of note has had marriage traditions, so this is not a "biblical" thing at all. This is simple, universal truth.

Anyways, I am tired of repeating myself to a hostile crowd. You guys can sit around and congratulate yourself on how tolerant and open minded you guys are. Meanwhile the alienated "breeders" are silently dissociating themselves from the sick world you are helping to create. Have a good life everybody. I'm out.

On Dear Prop. 8 Supporters

Posted on November 20 at 7:30 a.m.

Homosexuals who adopt will leave the children at a disadvantage because they lack either the male or the female role model. That is all I am going to say about that.

The reproductive potential of heterosexual relationships is the why society has protected and enshrined them. This needs no further comment since I have beaten it to death in previous posts. You just disagree, and would disagree no matter what I said.

We could solve a lot of our problems if we just stopped reproducing, like global warming, crime, etc. Of course, there would be no one left, but that is irrelevant to you.

It is not discrimination to point out the obvious difference between gay couples and married folks. To say two reproductively viable folks cannot marry each other because one is black and the other white IS discrimination based on racism. And I am proud to say that we have done away with such bias. That is progress. To say two people of the same sex cannot marry because they have no reproductive potential is just common sense. For this reason, African Americans voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage. They know what racism and bias is and saw through the smoke screen and chose the right thing.

We are not going to agree. That is clear. Everyone here needs to realize that we who support prop 8 do so for our own compelling reasons.

On Dear Prop. 8 Supporters

Posted on November 20 at 1:21 a.m.

Prop 8 is in effect right now. Marriage between a man and woman stands as is until further notice.

On Dear Prop. 8 Supporters

Posted on November 20 at 1:16 a.m.

Nope, hetero couples who don't have kids can change their minds (they often do). They can also serve as adoptive parents and thus be role models the reproductive relationship of man and woman to their surrogate offspring. There are plenty of examples of surrogate parenting in nature to support the practice.

That homosexuality is not a choice is irrelevant. Can they reproduce? Can they model the reproductive relationship to surrogate offspring? No on both counts. Can gays handle heterosexual relationships? Some can, some cant. I am not their judge, so I would not deny a gay person a marriage license to someone of the opposite sex. Therefore it is up to them to decide, and therefore self inflicted if they decline.

On Dear Prop. 8 Supporters

Posted on November 20 at 12:54 a.m.

From the actual California Family Code:

"Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil
contract between a man and a woman" Oh, a man and a woman, why was that part left out of the quote?

"An unmarried male of the age of 18 years or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or older, and not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage."

Why the consummating clause? Oh, because if you cant seal the deal, then you might not be able to provide offspring. That has historically been a deal breaker.

I realize that there are obvious exceptions to the the ideal that heterosexual couples are to reproduce. That some couples are unable due to age or malfunction or choose not to, still does not invalidate the fact that only heterosexual couples are capable of reproducing. And that societies honoring of those couples is due to the fact that they can reproduce, not that they can just hop in the sack and whisper sweet nothings to each other.

On Dear Prop. 8 Supporters

0 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on November 20 at 12:29 a.m.

"Why is reproduction the defining aspect of marriage?" Seriously? Because societies decided to honor that segment of society that reproduced and raised offspring that in turn reproduced. Thus long term survival of the species is ensured. You have to admit I have a point.

Nothing against gays here, but they are left out of the picture until they come to the hetero side to swim in the gene pool. As far as I know, there is no law preventing them from doing so. Therefore, they are granted equal rights and if any separation occurs it is self inflicted.

On Dear Prop. 8 Supporters

0 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on November 20 at 12:18 a.m.

Anyone who thinks that marriage doesn't imply offspring, are fooling themselves and are totally ignorant in the face of history. Every known society has recognized only heterosexual marriage in one form or another. This has been so self evident that it didn't need defining until now because we are so open minded as a society that our brains have fallen out. That people have forgotten what marriage is for is why things like Prop 8 have to happen.

On Dear Prop. 8 Supporters

1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on November 20 at 12:03 a.m.

Rich,

My points don't make any sense eh? Let me rephrase it so that it can. Homosexual couples cannot produce offspring together. Heterosexuals can. Therefore they are different. That isn't logical to you?

Give me one good reason why that portion of society that actually reproduces should be made equal with one that doesn't. How is that fair?

You know what this reminds me of? Black berets. A few years back the US Army Rangers, an elite infantry unit, used to wear these distinctive black berets. Well, in 2001 Gen. Shinseki decided that since everyone in the Army is a super soldier just like the Rangers they should wear black berets too. Now everyone in the Army, even down to the lowest cook, is as awesome an Army Ranger right? Wrong. Nothing has really changed except that the black beret is meaningless (the Rangers wear Tan berets now).

Likewise, all the hooplah and ceremony over marriages is kind of like the black beret. All the pomp and circumstance is relegated to a special segment of society that does something very important. Gay rights advocates in the name of equality want all that too, despite the fact that they cannot do what hetero couples can. If that is allowed to happen, then marriage will go the way of the black beret. Everyone can have it, and it will mean nothing.

On Dear Prop. 8 Supporters

1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on November 19 at 9:23 p.m.

Dimwitted bigot eh? Hmmmn. Rich's response did not address my conclusions at all, and if that is the best you can come up with, then I just rest my case.

I am not arguing for getting rid of gay couples, just call them what they are: civil unions. Not marriages. Elton John had it right all along. Gays have civil unions, heterosexuals have marriages. They are completely different and should be treated as such.

You probably pride yourself on your open mindedness and tolerance, but listen to yourself! How about you repute the conclusions of the Island argument with some sort of logical argument instead of name calling.

To resort to epithets instead of compelling reason is, ironically enough, one of the definitions of bigotry.

On Dear Prop. 8 Supporters