California to De-Legalize Gay Marriage

I know you're not attacking me. :arms:

I'm not against being gay, or against gay marriage. I can just see the sense in not having gay marriage, because the entire purpose (as far as I believe) of marriage is to reproduce and raise your children to be productive citizens of the world. If a gay couple cannot do that, then what's the point?

I think same sex marriages should be legal. I just don't see a point in it.
You're part of a person's family whether or not it's written on a piece of paper that you are. I don't think that piece of paper matters much in matters of love, and if you really want to be married to someone for the legal benefits, then I don't believe you're getting married for the right reason.

The Strokes:

I know you're not attacking me. :arms:

I'm not against being gay, or against gay marriage. I can just see the sense in not having gay marriage, because the entire purpose (as far as I believe) of marriage is to reproduce and raise your children to be productive citizens of the world. If a gay couple cannot do that, then what's the point?

I think same sex marriages should be legal. I just don't see a point in it.
You're part of a person's family whether or not it's written on a piece of paper that you are. I don't think that piece of paper matters much in matters of love, and if you really want to be married to someone for the legal benefits, then I don't believe you're getting married for the right reason.

Following that logic, infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either. Just thought I'd point that out ^^

Saying that marriage is just about procreation is a little... wrong. Sorry. In the past maybe that was a little more true, but people have always married for love, and always will. The "point" of gay marriage, just like marriage between people who can't have children anyway, is that they love each other, and they want the state to recognise that.

Also, gay couples can adopt, or use sperm banks, or ask a very nice friend who doesn't really want children anyway to carry their child to term for them. It happens. When they're married they (SHOULD) have equal parental rights, and gain custody of their child(ren) should their partner die, which unmarried couples don't actually have...

La Princesa Muerta:

Following that logic, infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either. Just thought I'd point that out ^^

Saying that marriage is just about procreation is a little... wrong. Sorry. In the past maybe that was a little more true, but people have always married for love, and always will. The "point" of gay marriage, just like marriage between people who can't have children anyway, is that they love each other, and they want the state to recognise that.

Also, gay couples can adopt, or use sperm banks, or ask a very nice friend who doesn't really want children anyway to carry their child to term for them. It happens. When they're married they (SHOULD) have equal parental rights, and gain custody of their child(ren) should their partner die, which unmarried couples don't actually have...

That's why I said young healthy same-sex couples are creating a genetic dead end by being together.

Yes- they can use a surrogate, or other method of creating a child... but one or the others DNA will not be part of that child.

The state doesn't care about love. The state cares about practicality, and being politically correct, sadly.

The Strokes:

I know you're not attacking me. :arms:

I'm not against being gay, or against gay marriage. I can just see the sense in not having gay marriage, because the entire purpose (as far as I believe) of marriage is to reproduce and raise your children to be productive citizens of the world. If a gay couple cannot do that, then what's the point?

I think same sex marriages should be legal. I just don't see a point in it.
You're part of a person's family whether or not it's written on a piece of paper that you are. I don't think that piece of paper matters much in matters of love, and if you really want to be married to someone for the legal benefits, then I don't believe you're getting married for the right reason.

Yeah, but very few people marry for reproductive purposes anymore. People marry for love. There's plenty of childless straight married couples. I think that argument is a bit outdated. :think:

There are rights like getting to choose what happens if your husband or wife is on life support, inheriting money, collecting on life insurance, etc. You're right, money and those rights shouldn't affect a couple's love for each other, but it is important for couples to be able to make those decisions and have those protections in a situation like that. If you love somebody, you want them to be taken care of even after you die, and those rights aren't available in civil unions and domestic partnerships, from what I know.

The Strokes:

La Princesa Muerta:

Following that logic, infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either. Just thought I'd point that out ^^

Saying that marriage is just about procreation is a little... wrong. Sorry. In the past maybe that was a little more true, but people have always married for love, and always will. The "point" of gay marriage, just like marriage between people who can't have children anyway, is that they love each other, and they want the state to recognise that.

Also, gay couples can adopt, or use sperm banks, or ask a very nice friend who doesn't really want children anyway to carry their child to term for them. It happens. When they're married they (SHOULD) have equal parental rights, and gain custody of their child(ren) should their partner die, which unmarried couples don't actually have...

That's why I said young healthy same-sex couples are creating a genetic dead end by being together.

Yes- they can use a surrogate, or other method of creating a child... but one or the others DNA will not be part of that child.

The state doesn't care about love. The state cares about practicality, and being politically correct, sadly.

And that's why the state has made the marriage of infertile heterosexual couples illegal is it? Please actually address what I said.

And to add to that, there are plenty of couples who marry and ARE FERTILE but have no intention of ever having children.

The state's decision has nothing to do with making babies.

Right, I'm just going to butt in and respond to the whole "marriage is about kids, so gay people shouldn't be allowed to be married because they can't have kids" argument. The following is an excerpt from Dan Savage's Savage Love column.

Savage Love, March 4, 2004:

I know you don't want to hear this, Dan, but marriage is about babies. By supporting the baby industry--i.e., hetero baby producers--our government keeps the country populated. Never--and I mean never--can two gay people produce a child on their own. Gay marriage is not necessary and takes energy away from hetero baby makin'. We married baby producers assume legal responsibility for the lives of our children. We should be subsidized. My kids are exactly like me and my wife smooshed together. You can't put gays and straights on the same level--it's unfair to us baby producers. Now if we need a subcategory, something like "public union, non-producer," to make everyone feel good about themselves, fine. So be it. But nothing else is as important as making a person. Name one thing as important. I dare you.
Daddy Against Dan

Name something more important than making a person? That's easy: loving a person.

Baby producin' straight couples are important, DAD, and there's nothing about allowing gay people to get married that takes anything away from a pair of married, heterosexual baby producers. (Not that babies are really that scarce a resource.) And no one is suggesting that ALL people enter into gay marriages, thus denying our "government" a fully populated country. Even if all the gay people on earth got married tomorrow, ya dope, there would still be plenty of heteros out there populating the hell out of the place.

But marriage, as currently practiced by heterosexuals, is not about making babies. A modern marriage is whatever two straight people want it to be. It can last a lifetime, it can last an afternoon. It can be sexually exclusive, it can be open. It can be sacred (church, family, priest), or it can be profane (Vegas, strangers, Elvis). The wife can "joyfully submit" to the husband, as Southern Baptist women are encouraged to do, or the husband and wife can be equals. (Or as in the case of my friends Zac and Megan, the husband can joyfully submit to the wife.) And they can make little smooshes of themselves, or they can be childless. What makes them married--in their own eyes, and in the eyes of the state--is their love and commitment to each other, not their commitment to growing the population.

It's only when gays and lesbians want to get married that having kids--or the ability to make them, since plenty of gays and lesbians have them--is trotted out as the sole purpose of marriage. Why should loving, committed gay couples be held to a different standard on marriage? Why does fertility only matter when it comes time to deny gay people the right to marry?

For the original column, please go here.

The Strokes:

You're part of a person's family whether or not it's written on a piece of paper that you are.

No. A person can only legally be considered a person's spouse if they have a marriage certificate.
It might not work in a romantic notion of reality, but we don't live in a metaphorical world. These legal matters are important. Whether you want them to be or not.

The Strokes:

if you really want to be married to someone for the legal benefits, then I don't believe you're getting married for the right reason.

So being able to adopt your spouse's children as your own isn't a 'right reason'?
These 'legal benefits' aren't about being opportunistic, you know. They're about being treated like any normal human expects to be treated.

La Princesa Muerta:

And that's why the state has made the marriage of infertile heterosexual couples illegal is it? Please actually address what I said.

What I am trying to say is that when two people marry that could have children, but make that impossible for one or both of them by marrying someone of the same gender, it creates a genetic dead end. Infertile men/women aren't having children, regardless of who they marry, but same-sex couples could have children if they were to be in a heterosexual relationship.

Bloodraine:

The Strokes:

You're part of a person's family whether or not it's written on a piece of paper that you are.

No. A person can only legally be considered a person's spouse if they have a marriage certificate.
It might not work in a romantic notion of reality, but we don't live in a metaphorical world. These legal matters are important. Whether you want them to be or not.

The Strokes:

if you really want to be married to someone for the legal benefits, then I don't believe you're getting married for the right reason.

So being able to adopt your spouse's children as your own isn't a 'right reason'?
These 'legal benefits' aren't about being opportunistic, you know. They're about being treated like any normal human expects to be treated.

I was arguing the romantic side of it, at any rate.

And yes, they're not about being opportunistic, and you should be able to adopt your spouses children- but who did your homosexual spouse have children with in the first place? If it's with someone who they had a previous heterosexual relationship with, what about the parent in that relationship? Do they have no claim? (I think it's pretty rare for a homosexual parent to have custody anyways, because our society is full of homophobic people who think you're a terrible parent for loving someone of the same gender. It's silly.)

The Strokes:

What I am trying to say is that when two people marry that could have children, but make that impossible for one or both of them by marrying someone of the same gender, it creates a genetic dead end. Infertile men/women aren't having children, regardless of who they marry, but same-sex couples could have children if they were to be in a heterosexual relationship.

Well, it's not like gay people would go and have sex and babies and act straight just because gay marriage isn't allowed.
:shifty

I know that this probably isn't the right place for personal feelings, but Prop 8 still makes me feel incredibly sad and dehumanized.

The worst thing about it is that, at this day and age, I never thought that we would have our rights taken away from us. This is not even an arguement on gay marriage necessarily, it's a human rights issue.

If gay people in California could have their rights taken away - then so can everybody else. This shouldn't legally be allowed. I mean (hypothetically), what right could they take away next?

That's ridiculous.
I'm a Christian, but my church is not anti-homosexual. They welcome everyone, no matter what. No offense to Catholics, but sometimes, they make it sound like they are better than God. If God didn't want this stuff to happen, it wouldn't have.

And even not looking at the religious point of view, I can almost see the point that they want to de-legalize gay marriage. But makeing people divorce? There's no point to that. They aren't hurting anyone, except homophobs, but still, that's not a good enough reason.
This makes me aggravated.

little lotte:

That's ridiculous.
I'm a Christian, but my church is not anti-homosexual. They welcome everyone, no matter what. No offense to Catholics, but sometimes, they make it sound like they are better than God. If God didn't want this stuff to happen, it wouldn't have.

First, I don't think it's fair to blame all this on Catholics, or assume that all Catholics are anti-gay. I'm fairly certain that there are gay/liberal Catholics, so okay. I thought the mormons were the main people behind this, too.

Second, the 'God wanted this to happen' argument is a bit dangerous, isn't it?
If you say everything that happens is okay on the basis that 'God wills it', then that becomes problematic. If a murder happens, did God want it to happen? That means we can't punish anyone for it, surely. Because it was the will of God.

It's essentially implying that there is no free will. And I don't think there is any way for humans to know what God's will is. As an Atheist, I don't think God has any kind of will at all, but that's beside the point.

The Strokes:

I'm not against being gay, or against gay marriage. I can just see the sense in not having gay marriage, because the entire purpose (as far as I believe) of marriage is to reproduce and raise your children to be productive citizens of the world. If a gay couple cannot do that, then what's the point?

Two things. Firstly, the point of marriage isn't to have children. You can have children without a marriage. A marriage is supposed to be the joining of two people. Not the joining of two people and their promise to reproduce.

Secondly, gay people can do that. Through adoption, in-vitro, artificial insemination. There are options for people that wish to have children.

And there are married couples that don't want children.

There is no stipulation in getting married (straight or gay) that says one must have offspring.

Therefore, I see your argument as mute. Sorry.

And I know gay couples that have raised children and turned them into productive citizens so...

druscilla's journal.:

Two things. Firstly, the point of marriage isn't to have children. You can have children without a marriage. A marriage is supposed to be the joining of two people. Not the joining of two people and their promise to reproduce.

Secondly, gay people can do that. Through adoption, in-vitro, artificial insemination. There are options for people that wish to have children.

And there are married couples that don't want children.

There is no stipulation in getting married (straight or gay) that says one must have offspring.

Therefore, I see your argument as mute. Sorry.

And I know gay couples that have raised children and turned them into productive citizens so...

Homosexual people create a genetic dead end when they marry. That was the point I was trying to make. They cannot have the child without the help of someone outside their relationship.

The point of marraige is not to reproduce, yes. The point of marraige is to reproduce and raise your children with your values. Or at least one of the major purposes.

The Strokes:

The point of marraige is not to reproduce, yes. The point of marraige is to reproduce and raise your children with your values. Or at least one of the major purposes.

Not according to the government.
My main problem with arguments like that is that it drags a non-legal aspect into something that really, once you get down to it, is just a legal ceremony. And that's all that the LGBT movement is fighting for--legal rights. In the legal aspect, the only point in marriage is the 1,049 legal benefits, liabilities, and provisions that are applied to people that the government recognizes as married. Legally, marriage doesn't have anything to do with children (considering children can be born to parents who aren't married).

The Strokes:

Homosexual people create a genetic dead end when they marry. That was the point I was trying to make. They cannot have the child without the help of someone outside their relationship.

The point of marraige is not to reproduce, yes. The point of marraige is to reproduce and raise your children with your values. Or at least one of the major purposes.

What about single parent families? What about unmarried couples with children?
I think having kids has nothing to do with marriage, to be honest. Marriage should be seen as a commitment between one lover to another. Just because you're married doesn't mean you have to have kids, and just because you're unmarried doesn't mean you can't have kids.

The Strokes:

The point of marraige is not to reproduce, yes. The point of marraige is to reproduce and raise your children with your values. Or at least one of the major purposes.

And as I pointed out, there's absolutely nothing to stop homosexual couples from doing that.

Are you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to be married because they may have to adopt?

And there's nothing to say that they'll reach a genetic dead-end.

When I was with my ex we considered mixing her eggs with my brother's sperm and so on. No genetic dead end there.

Just because someone can't lie in a bed and get pregnant doesn't mean they can't have children.

This is why I view your argument as mute. It doesn't make sense.

Adie Armstrong.:

What about single parent families? What about unmarried couples with children?
I think having kids has nothing to do with marriage, to be honest. Marriage should be seen as a commitment between one lover to another. Just because you're married doesn't mean you have to have kids, and just because you're unmarried doesn't mean you can't have kids.

Why do you need to be married to show that level of commitment? It's a piece of paper that doesn't necessarily mean much to your relationship other than being a symbol.

I do think that it is wrong that they cannot adopt the children of the person they're commited to (or any of the other things mentioned) simply because they're not married.

I don't see gay marriage being illegal as having rights removed though. GLBT people have the same rights as everyone else, they just happen to be in same-sex relationships. A straight person can't have a same-sex marriage either. Yes- it sucks, but truly, no rights are being taken away.

It's ridiculous to make gay marriage illegal when it's been legal for a while though. (How long?)

The Strokes:

I don't see gay marriage being illegal as having rights removed though. GLBT people have the same rights as everyone else, they just happen to be in same-sex relationships. A straight person can't have a same-sex marriage either. Yes- it sucks, but truly, no rights are being taken away.

Yes, rights are being taken away.
The right to marry the gender you are attracted to is being taken away.

The Strokes:

Why do you need to be married to show that level of commitment? It's a piece of paper that doesn't necessarily mean much to your relationship other than being a symbol.

But not a lot of people feel that way. There's a general consensus among the population that marriage in the ultimate goal in any relationship, representing love and commitment--and I'm sure a vast number of same-sex couples are of that opinion and aren't going to change their minds just because their government doesn't want to acknowledge their rights.

The Strokes:

I don't see gay marriage being illegal as having rights removed though. GLBT people have the same rights as everyone else, they just happen to be in same-sex relationships. A straight person can't have a same-sex marriage either. Yes- it sucks, but truly, no rights are being taken away.

Straight couples have their relationships legally recognized by the government--and governments across the world--by something called marriage. This includes over 1,000 federal rights regarding Social Security pensions, tax benefits, and advantages in the immigration process.
Gay couples do not.
I don't see how that's not denying rights.