Moonbeam Makes the Use of the Words Husband and Wife Illegal in California

No one claimed it did. Get yourself a dictionary. Inhibit does not equal prohibit.

I quite clearly stated "extended only to gay couples". Grasping for a strawman already? And that would be all 30 something states with gay marriage.

 

You're playing semantic games here. Who is or is not allowed to marry has almost nothing to do with who procreates.

The only strawman here is that anyone is "extending marriage to only gay couples." We both accept that children raised in stable families are better off than children raised in broken families. So then shouldn't we extend the benefits of marriage to ALL consenting adults who are legally able to get married? What logical reason do you have for denying these benefits to same-sex couples?

 

BS. It is the one and only reason marriage has been limited for thousands of years to men and women. Because only men and women procreate. From the Supreme Court of the US

From BC Roman law

 

No...you don't understand. Specifically, it is apparent that you don't understand what the words "legal" or "emperor" mean.

 

Is anyone else reading this?

Dixon, brother, c'mon, your second statement directly contradicts your first that I quoted.. It's pretty clear that you're just making your arguments up as you go.

 

???? No contradiction whatsoever. Heterosexual couples are going to procreate whether they are married or not. Marriage isn't about creating children. Its about improving the well being of children that only heterosexual couples produce.

 

Not me, as I've seen it all before, more times than I can count. I've merely been watching to see who is participating, wondering if the thread might be rehabilitated. The prospects are pretty grim, and the original topic seems to have quickly run its course, so I think I'll be leaving now. Have fun, but realize you're wasting your time.

 

I understand just fine.

 

Their "promoting procreation" strawman was a waste of time the first time they threw it into the debate and the 100th time.

 

But you've already admitted that homosexual couples can produce children thru adoption, IVF or surrogacy, even though they can't create them the traditional way. So please try to answer my other question, if marriage is so important to improving the well being of children, why shouldn't homosexual couples have the benefit of marriage?

 

???? Because the improvement to the well being of children is the benefit from the presence of both their mother and father in the home. Because the most common alternative is a single mother on her own with an absent of unknown father. Children with a homosexual couple requires the separation of the child from one or both of those parents.

AND any two people could produce children using such methods. Does nothing for your arguments for gay marriage.

 

Do you think that a single mother would be better for raising a child than two same-sex adults in a committed relationship?

And the children adopted by heterosexual couples are not? You seem to think that children are being removed from their parents by force just so homosexuals can adopt them.

Actually, it does, since my argument is that anyone who can produce children through such methods should be able to marry.

 

Probably not, did you have a point you wanted to make? Some studies have shown that children raised by a single mother and grandparent, do even better than a parent and step parent. If you want special treatment for gays when it comes to parenting, you need SOME justification for doing so.

Yes they are. Did you have a point you wanted to make?

Sounds like your next strawman you are busy creating.

Thats not what the 30 something states with gay marriage have done.

 

Two women or two men can't raise a child as well as only one? I'd love to see the study that backs that up.

Which studies are those? According to this study, "children's well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents."
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377

What special treatment? Again, the onus is on the state to justify why marriage should be limited to heterosexuals.

That the children of homosexual couples are no different than the children of heterosexuals who adopt or use IVF. Was it really that hard to figure out?

Just trying to understand your straw man arguments.

If marriage is about the well being of children, then that applies to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

 

Its like you don't even read what it is YOU choose to quote and respond to. Or are you again grasping for refuge in the next strawman?

 

???? Extending marriage to include gay couples while other couples are still excluded, of course.

 

I don't see how your inability to grasp my arguments is a reflection on me. Let me make my position clear, then you can explain where you see any straw man.

Marriage is about one thing, providing a stable environment for raising children. Homosexuals are just as capable of providing a stable environment for raising children as heterosexuals. Therefore homosexuals should be allowed to marry and receive all of the benefits that go with it.

 

You still seem confused about how our government works. When the state provides a benefit like marriage, it has to provide it to everyone unless it can show a compelling interest in excluding certain groups. What compelling interest is there in excluding same-sex couples from marriage?

 

Your inability to grasp that your question, isnt an argument, does reflect upon you.

 

Come on now, you're not even trying anymore.

 

You didnt make an argument. You asked a question. A Question I answered. When you get around to making an argument, I'll address it.

 

Well, thats a mis statement of the law, but, what compelling interest is served by excluding the single mother and grandmother down the street joined together for over a decade to provide and care for their children/grandchildren? Whats the compelling interest in excluding the two elderly, widowed sisters living together for decades?

 

What's funny is that same-sex marriage has absolutely no effect on traditional marriage that isn't the result of idiotic people having a hissy fit. There is no destabilizing. If two men or two women getting married causes a marriage to fall apart, that marriage was going to fall apart anyway. If your marriage is so fragile that two stranger's marriage threatens it, well then I feel sorry for you and whatever children you may have had in it. How pathetic and sad your marriage must be if same-sex marriage is even something considered about it.

 

Wrong, normalizing (and this case popularizing) abnormality does destabilize. Your post makes that pretty clear.

 

But all you have is words and doomsday scenarios. Care to use real life examples that you can show solid correlation for, particularly from states that have legalized same-sex marriage?