Originally Posted By gadzuux So if more gay couples "tended to have children" your opposition would end?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "It's a special benefit given to heterosexual couples because they tend to have children, and society wants to encourage them to form stable relationships in which to raise those children." In your opinion.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So if more gay couples "tended to have children" your opposition would end?> Sure, if gay couples suddenly started conceiving children, then my argument would no longer be logical. But that's not going to happen. My opposition would also end if it could be shown that allowing gay marriages would not lead to a decline in traditional marriage and childbirths, and an increase in out of wedlock births.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <In your opinion.> It's a pretty sound opinion. Do you believe that heterosexual couples do not tend to have children? Or that society does not want to encourage such couples to form stable relationships in which to raise those children?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<It's a special benefit given to heterosexual couples because they tend to have children, and society wants to encourage them to form stable relationships in which to raise those children. >> Thirty-one percent of children in the U.S. are in single parent households. That policy doesn't seem to have worked too well. Its use as a reason to not allow gay marriage is pretty much worthless.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Most northerners did not favor abolishing slavery in the south before the war, but they couldn't really do much about the Emancipation Proclamation.>> <The data does not support your premise.> Huh? I thought you already accepted that premise. "A large percentage of the populace was not "pro-slavery" per se, but believed it should be allowed to continue in the states that had it. " Aside from the semantics of perferring "could" to "should," you agreed with that. Most northerners were fine with slavery continuing in the south. <Neither slavery or interracial marriage had the opposition that recognition of gay marriage has. When the people were given the chance to vote on slavery or interracial marriage, most places chose to end or not allow slavery and to allow interracial marriage. The same is not true of recognizing gay marriage.> Not so. I'm not sure interracial marriage was ever voted on referendum-style by the people; if you can find examples of states doing so, please provide them. We know from earlier discussions that state courts sometimes ended the ban on it. I'm not sure slavery was ever voted on in this way either - by state legislatures, yes, but that's different. And we know that some state legislatures also voted to retain it before they later voted to abolish it (if in fact they did - some states never did, of course).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That policy doesn't seem to have worked too well.> I can't think of a policy that would work better. <Its use as a reason to not allow gay marriage is pretty much worthless.> No, it's not. Marriage and the family need shoring up, not tearing down.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Aside from the semantics of perferring "could" to "should," you agreed with that.> Yes, I did. But that's not what your premise was. <I'm not sure interracial marriage was ever voted on referendum-style by the people; if you can find examples of states doing so, please provide them.> I never specified referendum-style. <I'm not sure slavery was ever voted on in this way either> Try putting "Bleeding Kansas" in a Google search. <And we know that some state legislatures also voted to retain it before they later voted to abolish it (if in fact they did - some states never did, of course).> Some may have, but not most.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Unfortunately, Douglas once insisted that we allowed post-menopausal marriage only because we couldn't tell by looking (!) if a woman was post-menopausal. Don't look for logic from DD on this one.> Here we go again. Misrepresent what I said, and then claim I'm not using logic.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "It's a pretty sound opinion. Do you believe that heterosexual couples do not tend to have children? Or that society does not want to encourage such couples to form stable relationships in which to raise those children?" I don't believe a childless marriage does not benefit society. I do not believe marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation. I don't believe society cares if it's gay or hetero parent as long as the child has a good home. I know for a fact the courts don't.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Sure, if gay couples suddenly started conceiving children, then my argument would no longer be logical. But that's not going to happen." So they adopt, problem solved.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe post 69---legally Pass but NOT the overwhelmingly more important moral and religious problems to gay marriage.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe addendum--to extrapolate the slavery analogy--Isn't that exactly why discrimination continues to exist on a widespread basis today i.e. that even though the legal problems have been solved one by one e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson 1896, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas 1956, the moral and religious overtones persist?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I don't believe a childless marriage does not benefit society. I do not believe marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation. I don't believe society cares if it's gay or hetero parent as long as the child has a good home. I know for a fact the courts don't.> None of those statements answered my questions, did they?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe FYI- Having said that, I strongly disagree with the analogy premise in the first place. The last two posts were merely intellectual exercises predicated upon the validity of the initial premise.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo RE: 50 John Bell was himself a slave owner and his Congressional record with fill with pro slavery legislation. A major part of the Constitutional Union Party’s platform was to give those Republicans who were not abolitionists an alternative. Stephen Douglas was in favor of giving people of the states or territories the right to decide for themselves (popular sovereignty). Not much of an indictment against slavery. <<And yet, 5 years later, the slaves were free. Obviously, a majority of Americans were not supportive of slavery...>> Interesting you mention this. In the 1864 election, George McClellan, an ardent supporter of slavery and capitulation to the south received 45% of the northern popular vote. And this was without the southern population, and we pretty much know who they would have voted for given the choices of Lincoln or McClellan. <<…and talking about it really doesn't prove anything one way or another on the issue of gay marriage.>> Not in and of itself. It’s simply a matter of historical perspective and trends toward a more liberal society.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So they adopt, problem solved.> I'm not sure what problem you think is solved by gay adoption, but it definitely doesn't dispel my argument.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Read my posts Douglas as I believe Pass meant that the LEGAl arguments were solved according to his post 68.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "None of those statements answered my questions, did they?" Sure they do.
