Thread: Washington State takes first step in becoming 7th state with marriage parity

Originally Posted by Traveler

Meh, i would go a lot further - i don't think there should be any civil marriages of any sort at all. Want to get married? Go to church.

That's my views on it, anyway.

Or anywhere, for that matter. Wouldn't matter where you'd go to get "married," a church, a rave or a gay bar. It wouldn't have any legal recognition after all.

That's where i differ - i think there should be recognition amongst marriages sanctioned by the church. I think the state and church are too far apart atm as it is.

Originally Posted by Traveler

That's where i differ - i think there should be recognition amongst marriages sanctioned by the church. I think the state and church are too far apart atm as it is.

What kind of recognition?

Originally Posted by Traveler

No, nor was i at any point...

I aksed if it would be constitutional for the state to deny homosexuals the right to enter into other civil legal contracts together... and you said "oh sure." That would be a violation of free association.

Originally Posted by Traveler

Meh, i would go a lot further - i don't think there should be any civil marriages of any sort at all. Want to get married? Go to church...

Originally Posted by Traveler

...i think there should be recognition amongst marriages sanctioned by the church. I think the state and church are too far apart atm as it is.

The idea of marriage was never exclusive to any religious establishment, ever, it is entirely a cultural phenomena... besides, a law which would separately recognize marriages between the religious and non-religious is utter nonsense, it won't fly with the separation of church and state and the better half of America would most likely agree. Because the way I see it, with what's going on in Washington and California, more and more people are starting to recognize the irrational and often paranoid ideas others have towards gays, or the idea of gay rights.

Unsure anyone in this thread has been able to show a single good reason why gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry. Far as I am concerned, we now have 7 states that have realized this and moved on. Quite a few more to go...

Originally Posted by Slon

I understand what you said and I again point out that the one-man-one-woman lifelong exclusive relationship is inefficient, biologically speaking.

Insufficient based on the exploding population growth of humans on Earth?

Originally Posted by Slon

You're the one making the claim, but now I have to find the evidence for you? Nice try. First you support your "maximize a child's positive character growth from all of known history" claim.

Well, that's the way we do it here on planet Earth. It must be done like that for a reason. The fact that NO EXCEPTIONS exist does not phase you. You live in fantasy land not reality.

Originally Posted by Slon

Then explain to me why we can't just breed kids based on biological breeding ability and raise them based on raising ability via adoption if you're really interested in maximizing population growth.

I am not interested in maximizing population growth. It is theoretically possibble to breed kids in all manner of decadent conditions but all human history supports one way, the child's biological parents. You seem to hate that Nature has made things unequal. Sure, sure there are exceptions to the child being raised by their biological parents, e.,g. divorce, orphans, etc. But the idea that a non-biological couple having a stronger claim to raising the child than the actual couple who coupled the kid into existence does not exist as a RULE anywhere at anytime except in the fantasy land of a Liberals mind as it should be.

Originally Posted by Traveler

Look, this is starting to go round in circles for a bit now...

I wanted to avoid asking it this way because i don't want it to seem like a gotcha moment or that i am being flippant here, but even the SC has ruled that for gender discrimination, at the very basic level, a gender, specifically has to be discriminated upon.

You're going to have answer this as simply as possible, with one word as an answer:

If you claim that allowing gays to marry is gender discrimination then please tell me, which gender is being discriminated upon? And that's the first question any judge sitting on the high court would ask the plaintiff's attorney...so what would be your/their answer?

Again, i don't mean this in a gotcha/mean spirited way, but it gets to the crux of the issue, of the EPC/gender discrimination aspect to all this.

Gender based discrimination doesn't need to be targeting one specific gender, it has to be based on gender.
The laws against same sex marriage are based on gender.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

I am not interested in maximizing population growth. It is theoretically possibble to breed kids in all manner of decadent conditions but all human history supports one way, the child's biological parents. You seem to hate that Nature has made things unequal. Sure, sure there are exceptions to the child being raised by their biological parents, e.,g. divorce, orphans, etc. But the idea that a non-biological couple having a stronger claim to raising the child than the actual couple who coupled the kid into existence does not exist as a RULE anywhere at anytime except in the fantasy land of a Liberals mind as it should be.

I'm sure that what you mean to say here is that historically the two parent system has proven to be one of the best ways to raise children. It is even better when you actually have even more than two people taking on a parental role... such as a grandparent living in the home. All this shows is that the more love, support, and guidance a child has from adult role models... the better off that child will be. There has however never been a study that shows that children are any better off with biological parents than they are with adoptive parents. Nor have any mainstream, peer reviewed, studies ever shown that a child is better off with opposite sex parents than with same sex parents. The real determining factor seems to be the number of parents... not the genetics or gender of the parents.

Now that more and more same sex couples are indeed having children... it is tragic that so many of those children have to go without the safety net that having two legal parents provides. Discriminating against adults because one disapproves of what is done in their bedrooms is egregious enough... but to discriminate against children is truly unconscionable.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

I'm sure that what you mean to say here is that historically the two parent system has proven to be one of the best ways to raise children. It is even better when you actually have even more than two people taking on a parental role... such as a grandparent living in the home.

No that is not what I meant at all. I am saying the two parent system is the ONLY system to exist everywhere throughout all of history - as a rule. It's disgusting that you compare the parents of the parents to homosexuals.

Here is an interesting article against the EPC, Federal Judge Dismisses PETA Lawsuit Claiming SeaWorld Whales Are Slaves « CBS Tampa

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

No that is not what I meant at all. I am saying the two parent system is the ONLY system to exist everywhere throughout all of history - as a rule. It's disgusting that you compare the parents of the parents to homosexuals.

Here is an interesting article against the EPC, Federal Judge Dismisses PETA Lawsuit Claiming SeaWorld Whales Are Slaves « CBS Tampa

??????

Make sense... this does not.

It demonstrates a limit to the application of Equal Protection Under the Law.

To those of you who keep bringing up children every time the subject of gay marriage comes up:

When we begin asking heterosexual couples if they are going to have children, then you may have an argument provided that you only allow those who intend to procreate to marry.