CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[DanS]

What was the percentage of voter support for this referendum?

[Arrian]

Wiki says 4,618,673 votes for versus 2,909,370 against. 61%/39% roughly.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

You actually just argued that if gay marriages exist, less straight people were marry. You didn't just do that did you?

You have a counter argument? I'd like to see it. Otherwise the point stands. The more alternative paths you provide to the same, or nearly the same outcome, the less likely you will have people marry.

There is actually no proof that a mother and father parent household is any better than a mother & mother or father & father household.

I'm not even saying that Imran. I'll slow down for you.

1. Most children are born in families with a husband and a wife.

Do you dispute this?

2. Of all the different arrangements, the one that is most likely to result in children is a husband and a wife.

Do you dispute this one?

If both of these are true, then the state has an incentive to promote marriage between a man and a woman as that is the arrangement that is most likely to result in children.

Secondly,

1. Most children are raised in families with a husband and a wife.

2. The arrangement that is most likely to result in raising children is a husband and a wife.

Do you disagree with either of these?

If both of these are true, then the state has an incentive to promote marriage between a man and a woman as that is the arrangement that is most likely to raise children.

[Lord Avalon]

CASC

But

Conservative groups have proposed a new initiative, this one to amend the state constitution, to ban same-sex marriage. If it is allowed onto the ballot and approved by the voters, Thursday’s decision would be overridden.

(From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us...rriage.html?hp)

[Arrian]

Gays marrying will have absolutely no impact on straights marrying. That's a ridiculous claim.

Why would gay marriage have any impact whatsoever on straight marriages?

-Arrian

[DanS]

Originally posted by Arrian
Wiki says 4,618,673 votes for versus 2,909,370 against. 61%/39% roughly.

-Arrian

Pretty impressive majority. Thanks.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Arrian
Gays marrying will have absolutely no impact on straights marrying. That's a ridiculous claim.

Why would gay marriage have any impact whatsoever on straight marriages?

-Arrian

Because there will be fewer gays to marry hetero partners as God and BK intended?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You have a counter argument? I'd like to see it. Otherwise the point stands. The more alternative paths you provide to the same, or nearly the same outcome, the less likely you will have people marry.

The counter is you are bat**** insane. Really. You really think less straight people are going to get married because they can now get married in a gay ceremony?!!

WTF?!! Seriously... WTF?!!

Why in the Hell would a couple who was planning on marriage now decide it isn't worth it?

I'm not even saying that Imran. I'll slow down for you.

1. Most children are born in families with a husband and a wife.

Do you dispute this?

Nope.

2. Of all the different arrangements, the one that is most likely to result in children is a husband and a wife.

Do you dispute this one?

Nope.

If both of these are true, then the state has an incentive to promote marriage between a man and a woman as that is the arrangement that is most likely to result in children.

Using "most likely to result in children" to ban others from getting married doesn't pass the compelling test to prevent gays from marrying even slightly. Because children are quite easily born without heterosexual marriage (all the time in fact).

Furthermore, your argument can also be extended to say all children are born in families where the parents are fertile, therefore the state should prevent infertile people from marrying. Do you think that should fly? Or would?

Secondly,

1. Most children are raised in families with a husband and a wife.

2. The arrangement that is most likely to result in raising children is a husband and a wife.

Do you disagree with either of these?

If both of these are true, then the state has an incentive to promote marriage between a man and a woman as that is the arrangement that is most likely to raise children.

Again, falls far, far short of a compelling test to eliminate equal protection. Because adoption and artificial insemination exist.

And it isn't "most likely to raise children", but that which is best to raise children.

[BeBMan]

Husband&wife? So you have to be married to let the babies roll?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DanS


Pretty impressive majority. Thanks.

Yeah, bit of a landslide, one must admit. Depressing.

Still, I think the wind is blowing in the right direction. Give it another generation or two, and the public will get it right

-Arrian

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I want many things. I would love a big mac for free, but that doesn't mean I have a legal right to one. Just because I want something doesn't mean it is my right to demand something.

Actually, your argument is more akin to this?

"Everyone has a right to pay for as many Big Macs as they want. But if you want a Whopper, we'll cast aspersions on you and legally bar you from doing that."

Which is all well and good if you like the Big Mac (i.e., a straight-straight marriage), or are willing to accept a Big Mac (i.e., a gay-straight marraige), but if that special sauce causes you enormous problems, and all you want is the Whopper, you're S.O.L.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK, if government decided that hetero marriage wasn't allowed, and allowed gay marriage, would you make the same argument re: equal protection?

Yes, marriage isn't an individual right. Secondly, I don't believe equal protection means the same as equal provisions. I don't think marriage laws fall under equal protection, Loving being different, because Loving was arguing that barring blacks from marrying whites was setting up unequal classes. That's not the case here.

[Zkribbler]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

...If both of these are true, then the state has an incentive to promote marriage between a man and a woman as that is the arrangement that is most likely to raise children.

...and likewise should ban any woman over 50 from marrying anyone because she can no longer bear children. Hmmm, using that logic, straight marriages should come with an expiration date.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Arrian
Yeah, bit of a landslide, one must admit. Depressing.

California isn't known as a conservative state, last I checked. Nor particularly religious.

[Q Classic]

This is also false. Children are most likely to be born, and children are better off when raised in a two parent home, mother and father. Therefore, the state has cause to restrict marriage to just a man and a woman, in order to protect the benefits associated in childbirth and rearing.

Actually, the concept of a "nuclear" family, with a two-parent home that includes a mother and father, is a predominantly Western ideal; many other societies have found that children are raised more successfully in, say, multi-generational households, whether or not both parents are consistently present.

That also bypasses the whole argument about gender roles of what entails motherhood and fatherhood.