Thousands Protest Gay Marriage Ban Across Nation

I already responded to this argument above.

"And, yes, there are many heterosexual couples who cannot have children, for one reason or another. However, that is because some part of their normal genetic make-up is missing, not functioning properly, etc. It is not because they inherently as a group cannot have children.

Gays have NEVER been able to have children together throughout the entire history of humankind. And as far as anyone knows, they never will be able to have children together. If gays get married, than they will also be allowed to adopt children, correct? Why should society grant them a right that whoever/whatever created them did not see fit to grant them? And why should the children that they adopt have to live in a situation that whoever/whatever created them did not intend? What about the rights of those children?"

"Gays have NEVER been able to have children together throughout the entire history of humankind."

gay people have children. sometimes with surrogates and sometimes from previous marriages, just like straight couples. does that make their family any less valid?

"If gays get married, than they will also be allowed to adopt children, correct?"

gay people already can adopt here in california.

"Why should society grant them a right that whoever/whatever created them did not see fit to grant them?"

if the children are up for adoption:
1. you don't know if the parents did or did not want the child to be raised by gay parents
2. the birth parents don't have a say because it's not their kid anyway.

"What about the rights of those children?"

the right to have loving parents instead of being bounced around foster homes?

"gay people have children. sometimes with surrogates and sometimes from previous marriages, just like straight couples. does that make their family any less valid?"

Gays have NEVER been able to have children TOGETHER naturally throughout the entire history of humankind.

"gay people already can adopt here in california."

Yes, but not in all states, which is their ultimate goal.

"if the children are up for adoption:
1. you don't know if the parents did or did not want the child to be raised by gay parents
2. the birth parents don't have a say because it's not their kid anyway."

Why should society grant them a right that whoever/whatever created them did not see fit to grant them? This statement never referred to the birth parents. It refers to whatever creative power you believe in (God, evolution, Martians . . .)

"the right to have loving parents instead of being bounced around foster homes?"

How about the right to be raised by a heterosexual couple, who are the only ones able to naturally have children. Again, whatever creative power you believe in obviously didn't give gays the power of procreation. So what makes you think they were intended to be parents?

"Gays have NEVER been able to have children TOGETHER naturally throughout the entire history of humankind."

and infertile couples have NEVER been able to have children TOGETHER, naturally throughout the entire history of humankind.

"Yes, but not in all states, which is their ultimate goal."

i know. it's sad. imagine all of the kids that could have already been put in stable homes

"Why should society grant them a right that whoever/whatever created them did not see fit to grant them? It refers to whatever creative power you believe in (God, evolution, Martians . . .)"

god, evolution, martians, whatever granted them the ability to fall in love and start families. how are you going to say it doesn't? do you know the intentions of any of those things? (btw, evolution doesn't intend anything, things just happen because of mutations and stay because of natural selection)

"How about the right to be raised by a heterosexual couple"

being raised by a straight couple isn't any better than being raised by a gay couple

"who are the only ones able to naturally have children."

that doesn't account for the straight couples who aren't able to have children "naturally"

"Again, whatever creative power you believe in"

thank god i don't believe in a creative "power"

"obviously didn't give gays the power of procreation."

gay people procreate all the time

"So what makes you think they were intended to be parents?"

so because they can't procreate, they are not fit to raise children? that goes back to infertile couples

Infertile couples are the exception, not the rule. However many times you try to hammer that square nail, it's not going to fit into the round hole.

And when I said "creative power", it was merely a term to try to lump all of the options together. You can substitute the word "process" or whatever word you prefer. The point remains the same. Gays have never been able to have children together.

You can continue the argument on your own at this point because I'm turning in for the night.

"Infertile couples are the exception,"

why infertile couples and not gay couples?

Do you really not have a good command of the English language or are you just purposely twisting my words?

"Infertile couples are the exception, not the rule. "

Translation: Most heterosexual couples are not infertile. There is a very low percentage that is. In that low percentage, it is because something in their NORMAL genetic make-up is not functioning properly.

"why infertile couples and not gay couples?"

Because ALL gay couples are non-fertile. Because they are all BORN that way. Because their genetic make-up doesn't EVER allow them to have children together.

You are trying to compare apples to oranges. (Do I need to translate that idiom also?)

there is no difference. in both cases their genetic make up keeps them from having children.

"there is no difference"

In YOUR opinion. In MY opinion, there is a big difference.

"In MY opinion"

well you can't take the rights of people away based on opinion, you need facts.

I didn't take anybody's rights away. The voters in California voted on this issue (twice now). Last time I checked, that was their "right." If you don't want to live in a country where people are allowed to vote, there are many other countries you can choose from.

"I didn't take anybody's rights away."

sorry i should have rephrased that. one does not take away the rights of others based on nothing but opinion. you need facts.

"The voters in California voted on this issue (twice now). Last time I checked, that was their "right.""

i feel that a lot of the voters were misinformed. i'm just trying to get the word out so they can make a better decision when it's up for vote again.

"If you don't want to live in a country where people are allowed to vote, there are many other countries you can choose from."

a little sensitive are we? did i hit a nerve?

"one does not take away the rights of others based on nothing but opinion. you need facts."

Again, YOUR opinion. I could cite many cases where people have lost what they believe are "rights" because other voters' OPINIONS didn't match theirs.

"i feel that a lot of the voters were misinformed."

Your side spent more money to get your message out than the other side, and had many more prominent and well-known backers and spokespeople. Perhaps a lot of voters just didn't agree with your arguments.

" i'm just trying to get the word out so they can make a better decision when it's up for vote again."

Certainly your right. Just as it's my right to try to get the word out for my side.

"a little sensitive are we? did i hit a nerve? "

Just giving you another option.

So according to you. in either case, gays and lesbians shouldn't have any rights!

Have you heard the old adage from Shakespeare: "Me thinks he doth protest too much"? How does gay people getting married diminish you as a person? Listen, let's leave God out of this. Separation of church and state, right? Despite what you may have heard, there are a heck of a lot more kids up for adoption than there are adoptive parents. The confusion come in because it takes very long to adopt - that's why there are "lines" to adopt. Should we all just drop the kids in the dumpster? You're a right to lifer, aren't you? No abortions leads to prom night dumpster babies. Banning gay marriage leads to a "lesser" class. Does that make you the "superior" class?

You say parenthood is a heterosexual right. I say it's not a right, it's more of a responsibility. people gay or straight, have the right to form families and care for one another.
Also, you're still arguing that families are about procreation. A lot of heterosexual and homosexual families have adopted children and raised them well.

I have no doubt that people are born gay! A lot of studies that show otherwise are biased and based on bigotry. Different organizations have different motivations behind the things they do. But a lot of gay people would tell you that they don't need to be told why they are gay or how they should be. It just feels natural to them. You don't go and say, "Oh well, today, I'm gonna decide to be attracted to guys and tomorrow, I'm gonna feel attracted to girls". Attraction is a natural feeling from within.

Bubidu, in answer to your question, I do not think gays have the right to get married and have children. I have no probem with them having tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc.

Contrary to what you may believe, I don't hate gays, and I have, in fact, known and liked many gays. However, I still would not vote No on 8, and I believe that I have that right. Also, contrary to what you may believe, not everyone who voted No did so out of hatred or bigotry or ignorance. Some of us have valid reasons and opinions on the subject, which, while they may not agree with your opinions or reasoning, are still not necessarily born of hatred or bigotry or ignorance..

Roy, I didn't say that gay people getting married diminishes me as a person. I also didn't bring God into the subject. Note: WHOEVER/WHATEVER made you gay did not see fit to give you the ability to have children. If WHOEVER/WHATEVER (God, evolution, Martians, etc.) did not see fit to give you the ability to have children, then why is it society's responsibility to give that "right" to you?

Bubidu, I'm not arguing that families are ONLY about procreation. I also have said nowhere that gays are or are not born gay. I have only said that they can't sit on both sides of the argument. If they were not born gay, then they have made choices that should not require society to change marriage and adoption laws based on their choices. If they were born gay, then they were born unable to have children, so again, why should society have to change marriage and adoption laws to "give" them that right?

And btw, Roy, nobody protests as much as the gays do right now! :)

(In response to your Shakespeare quote.)

Well you know in the end, you're opinion really doesn't matter, because this is a personal issue for a lot of couples and who are to have a say or vote on their marriage and their life?

Bubidu, good answer. When you don't have any real argument to make, fall back on the "it's not your right to vote on this issue" line. I say it's not your right to decide what I have the right to vote on.

"they were born unable to have children, so again, why should society have to change marriage and adoption laws to "give" them that right?"

start the above sentence with infertile couples

I've given an answer to this twice. There is a big difference between "medically unable" to have children verses "unable period" for an entire group.

if you are "medically unable" to have children ARE "unable period." it's the same thing

Except that berek posts pretty much the same recycled info on other threads and is repeatedly insulting.

The right to marry isn't a human right?

Oh, and fyi...you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Ty, problem solved! If everyone is bisexual, then you have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as all of the other bisexuals in the country!

Cantuc, facts are things that can be proven. Your opinion that gays are born that way is also just that, an opinion. I could use the argument that gays keep using to ask, if you are not heterosexual, then how do you know that it was not a choice?

And if gays aren't born that way, and it is in fact a choice, then that would pretty much shoot down your argument that you are "entitled" to the "right" of marriage, wouldn't it?

How so?

Let's say for the sake of argument that your sexual orientation is a choice. Does that then make them not human and therefore forgoes their right to marry?

Here's an excerpt from an article in Discovery Magazine that I read a while back...

"Whether or not a gay gene, a set of gay genes, or some other biological mechanism is ever found, one thing is clear: The environment a child grows up in has nothing to do with what makes most gay men gay. Two of the most convincing studies have proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause."

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay

There is also ample scientific research proving the fact that children raised by homosexual parents are no worse off than children raised by straight parents. In fact, most are often far more well adjusted.

I could also find many articles that would "prove" that sexual orientation is a choice. The FACT is that there is no PROOF either way. And if sexual orientation is a choice, then why should that choice necessitate a change in law? Many people make many choices every day; laws are not necessarily changed to accomodate their choices.

And the issue of children goes back to my previous statement. If sexual orientation is not a choice, then whoever/whatever created gays did not see fit to grant them the ability to have children together. Why should society have to grant them a right that they were not "born" with?

ThaiMarble -- Ohmagosh! Thanks so much for letting all of that out! I'll bet you've spent mental years arriving at your personal history to have so capably spilled it in 5 (count 'em) paragraphs. >

BTW, I hope you don't believe my creative spelling of your ID is intended to thrash.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (could you have guessed?). I am disconnected from Prop 8 concerns by a few states. Nonetheless, I find it of interest because moral issues like this one trump life and death issues like the war, for instance. Izzat scary? Consider that this is a 'live & let live' circumstance as you stated. So. . .it means we can none of us walk away from it, nor bury it and move on. Those who die get to carry on in the next sphere. "Let the dead bury their dead", Luke 9:60

I got a good Catholic upbringing in the Si Valley, and became LDS in my last year of high school. So. . .don't spare me any rants about the blinders I wear. I've got a seamy history of wild oats and alla that. Just turned it in for an upgrade.

Until now, I haven't considered my own orientation of import, but there's no real reason for that. I can own this: I'm an HIV-negative hetero white male (oh-so-boring). You've made me wanna come out. Hah!

P.S. I dinna donate.

TyMarshal -- You funny! And _thanks_ for your candor. When I'm thrashing sarcastic, I think you'll know.

My wild oats included wondering which way to lean, but that was in my 9th year of school. And no, I believe my parents had the wherewithal to raise us kids without benefit of guilt trips.

Goon on ya.

I stated no "myths", and I did not bring religion into the subject (other than to say if YOU believe that you were created by God . . .). However, since the beginning of the human race, there has been no evolution which allows same genger couples to procreate. Therefore I maintain that whatever force you believe made you gay obviously did not intend for you to raise children. If that force had intended for you to raise children, you would be able to procreate. You can call it a societal or a religious myth if you choose, but facts are facts. Society didn't decide that gays can't have children together, and neither did religion. You were born that way.

I think what you say is very interesting, and I truly do respect you for not bashing gay marriage.

What I disagree on is the "norms" that are portrayed. I believe this is all "societal normality" we are talking about here. Gay marriage is something we're not used to yet. It is the newest "taboo", so to speak.

We (America as a whole) broke through segregation, suffrage for Blacks (I do not say African American because not all black people are from Africa...plus, I call white people White, not Caucasian) and women, and inter racial marriage. Gay marriage is just another step our society can become more accepting and overall, more "American".

We all deserve Freedom, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, no matter what.

There are some things inherent in nature that makes it so that procreation in some cases, is not possible.

Millions of straight couples receive the unfortunate news that one, or both, do not contain the necessary components to produce a child, just as someone being born gay, causes them, through their inherent sexuality, to not be able to produce children via their relationship.

I never said that the ONLY reason for marriage was to have children. And, yes, there are many heterosexual couples who cannot have children, for one reason or another. However, that is because some part of their normal genetic make-up is missing, not functioning properly, etc. It is not because they inherently as a group cannot have children.

Gays have NEVER been able to have children together throughout the entire history of humankind. And as far as anyone knows, they never will be able to have children together. If gays get married, than they will also be allowed to adopt children, correct? Why should society grant them a right that whoever/whatever created them did not see fit to grant them? And why should the children that they adopt have to live in a situation that whoever/whatever created them did not intend? What about the rights of those children?

Gay couples should be able to adopt regardless of their marital status...there are so many children out there bouncing from foster home, to foster home and living in horrible conditions that would actually have a chance at a happy, LOVING, normal life REGARDLESS of the sexual orientation of their caretakers. See, children don't care either way if their caretakers are gay or lesbian, as long as they are being well cared for they are happy as can be no matter what...its only until society starts telling them its wrong, are there problems, and something the child will overcome. (and become all the more stronger and wiser for it) This is the same to any child with an "abnormal" upbringing, whether it be to deaf parents (like mine) blind parents, or any other "oddity" you'd like to come up with.

You say whoever/whatever created homosexuals did not allow them to procreate, (because it wasn't seen as "fit" to grant, as if a judgement was made, which is really YOUR judgement) and so what? Again this goes back to the argument that procreation does not make the world go round. Being gay IS something inherent from birth...over 300 species of animals have shown to have homosexual tendencies, and the current thought is that animals do not have the ability to rationalize a decision, let alone one about their sexuality. Scientists are showing more and more correlations between gay and certain genetic makeups.

And even if someone CHOSE to be with the same sex, who the hell cares? When you strip away our outer shell that shows our gender, we're still just humans with organs and bones and should feel free to love whomever...because gender assignments and the idea of a "man and woman only" are very much cultural and social restraints.

"procreation does not make the world go round"

I'd like to see the world keep going around for long without it.

"gender assignments and the idea of a 'man and woman only' are very much cultural and social restraints."

To answer with your own words: "which is really YOUR judgement, and so what?"