Gay Pride

• Con_Alma

  That has nothing to do with my post if it was intended to be a response to it. If it was not I apologize for thinking it was.
• FairwoodKing

  This afternoon, the judge in California allowed gay marriage, at least for the time being.
  
  http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/12/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T2
  
  I know this will go to the Supreme Court, but at least for now, gays and lesbians in CA have equal rights.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Deep down, I'm probably OK with homosexual marriages as contractually defined by the Constitution, Amendments, et al. According to most major religions, it's a no-no, but then there is no requirement to join one, so it's really up to the individuals.
  
  I will object however, if there is a case for a Constitutional "right" to have children. There is no physiological way for gays nor lesbians to have children. The genetics and chemistry just won't allow it, therefore since we can't change homo sapien status, it can't be a right.
• FairwoodKing

  BGFalcons82;452370 wrote: I will object however, if there is a case for a Constitutional "right" to have children. There is no physiological way for gays nor lesbians to have children. The genetics and chemistry just won't allow it, therefore since we can't change homo sapien status, it can't be a right.

  
  You're wrong about that. Many gay men are sperm donors so they and their partners can raise their own biological children. Lesbians do this all the time, often getting sperm from men they know.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  FairwoodKing;444054 wrote:The people who voted it down in California were heavily influenced by the Mormon Church who did everything in their power to make us look bad. It was not a fair fight.

  
  I wish liberals would quit repeating this lie.
  
  What defeated Prop 8 is a heavy influx of voters who loved Obama but don't believe in gay marriage (primarily blacks and hispanics). The Mormon church may have bought ads or done whatever else, but it is being scapegoated here because libs don't want to admit that the same folks who put Obama in office basically nixed gay marriage. Irony is ironic, sometimes. However, I'm tired of folks trying to revise the truth by continually repeating the Mormon bogeyman.
• BGFalcons82

  

  FairwoodKing;455333 wrote:You're wrong about that. Many gay men are sperm donors so they and their partners can raise their own biological children. Lesbians do this all the time, often getting sperm from men they know.

  
  You are making my point.
  
  You reference donations by a sex that is NOT involved in the relationship. It is IMPOSSIBLE for 2 gay men to have a baby without a woman and IMPOSSIBLE for 2 lesbians to have a baby without a man. Therefore, by definition, children cannot be created by gays and lesbians alone and they have no claim to any such right. Sorry, but the genetics and chemistry are what they are. They can marry and be happy, but they have no rights to claim children as they cannot produce one by themselves. They must ask someone else for it, so it can't be an inalienable right.
• I Wear Pants

  Are you just making a point (which you are technically correct about, at least in that they need an opposite sex to have a child) or do you not thing gay people should be able to have children?
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;455641 wrote:Are you just making a point (which you are technically correct about, at least in that they need an opposite sex to have a child) or do you not thing gay people should be able to have children?

  
  I am delving into the Constitutional side of the argument, not the religious side, and they are 2 totally separate paradigms.
  
  If we are to agree with the federal judge in California, that basically stated that the right of gay marriage is protected by the 14th amendment, then I just took it to the next level. People are born free and should have equal protection under the law per the 14th A. Rights are granted by our creator, but in keeping with the 14th A, then a right does not infringe upon another person. In order for gays and lesbians to have children, they must, by genetics and chemistry laws which we have absolutely no control over, be reliant upon another. Therefore, they have no inalienable right to children as they must include a 3rd party to produce this "right". That's my point.
  
  I'm NOT saying gays and lesbians should not be parents, but they cannot have children...if you understand my difference. I am saying that they cannot go to court and demand to have children as part of the 14th Amendment as then they are infringing on somebody else's rights.
• I Wear Pants

  That assumes that they are infringing upon this third party's rights. If they willingly agree to have a child for a gay person/couple I do not see why that can't be protected under the law. Of course no one supports forcing people to have children for gays. Just like no one reasonably wants churches to be forced to marry gay people if they don't want to. It'd just be nice if gay people could marry if it was cool with all relevant parties involved (those parties involved would be the couple and the specific church in this case).
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;455656 wrote:That assumes that they are infringing upon this third party's rights. If they willingly agree to have a child for a gay person/couple I do not see why that can't be protected under the law. Of course no one supports forcing people to have children for gays. Just like no one reasonably wants churches to be forced to marry gay people if they don't want to. It'd just be nice if gay people could marry if it was cool with all relevant parties involved (those parties involved would be the couple and the specific church in this case).

  
  If you force somebody to commit an act to give you your "right", then it is no right at all. Maybe it's a contract...maybe it's a gift/donation...maybe it's a quid pro quo...who knows. But an inalienable right is something ordained by our creator or by the feds. By simple definition, you can't have a right if it takes another to grant it to you. In other words, you aren't born with a right that says another human must donate a womb to you so you can procreate. Or another human must donate sperm to you so you can procreate. See what I mean?
• I Wear Pants

  I do get what you mean but I don't see the endgame. What's your point? I believe it to be within our current laws, and certainly the "right" thing to let gay people produce children assuming they have a willing and able person willing to donate their womb or sperm. That's all that matters to me. Is it an "unalienable" right, perhaps not. But I don't think that particularly matters.
• Heretic

  

  To be real, I'd prefer that issues like parentage were concerned more with the ability of two people to raise a child remotely properly, as opposed to the sexuality of those parents. People ramble on constantly about what's bringing down our society...the only legit answer is the huge number of uneducated government-assisted idiots who pop out kids with regularity. It drains the economy to support the trash (much like it does to prosecute people for nothing "offenses" like weed).
  
  It sounds draconian and shit, but not allowing unfit couples to have kids would do more to benefit our economy than a lot of the ideas actual politicians come up with. Give them to couples unable to have kids, couples with the wealth and desire to take in more kids and alternate-sexuality couples with the ability and desire to actually raise them or abort them...whatever works. And when you've personally known people who've based part of their decision concerning popping out a kid on their knowledge that their government check will be larger if they do, you start wondering if the world would be better if there were fewer natural-born statistics out there.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;455668 wrote:I do get what you mean but I don't see the endgame. What's your point? I believe it to be within our current laws, and certainly the "right" thing to let gay people produce children assuming they have a willing and able person willing to donate their womb or sperm. That's all that matters to me. Is it an "unalienable" right, perhaps not. But I don't think that particularly matters.

  
  All this talk about people's "rights" led me to my posts. The argument during the ObamaKare debate was that the socialists call health care a "right", when in reality, you'll be fined or jailed if you don't exercise this "right". Impossible for it to be a right under this law, but I digress.
  
  I understand the 14th Amendment argument from the judge and I understand the state of Cali voters exercising their state's rights as granted by the original Bill of Rights. In the end, I don't think I'm against gay marriage constitutionally speaking. However, the homosexual community has no "right" to acquire children. I draw the line there. To be clear, I'm not against them raising adopted/donated children, but they have no constitutional "right" to demand it. That's all.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;455636 wrote:You are making my point.
  
  You reference donations by a sex that is NOT involved in the relationship. It is IMPOSSIBLE for 2 gay men to have a baby without a woman and IMPOSSIBLE for 2 lesbians to have a baby without a man. Therefore, by definition, children cannot be created by gays and lesbians alone and they have no claim to any such right. Sorry, but the genetics and chemistry are what they are. They can marry and be happy, but they have no rights to claim children as they cannot produce one by themselves. They must ask someone else for it, so it can't be an inalienable right.

  
  It's impossible for sterile male and female couples to have a baby...what about them?
• BGFalcons82

  

  BoatShoes;456344 wrote:It's impossible for sterile male and female couples to have a baby...what about them?

  
  What about them? What's your question? Do they have the right to pursue a child? Sure. Do they have a right to adopt a child? Sure. Do they have a right to DEMAND a child be presented to them or it's unconstitutional? Nope.
• GeneralsIcer89

  Where are you getting the idea that any LGBT couple is demanding children be presented to them? Any LGBT couple wanting their own biological children have to seek out a willing sperm/egg donor.
  
  As far as adoption is concerned, it is only possible in Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, DC, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Maine. It is possible for a gay couple to adopt a step-child in Pennsylvania. Some states outright banned LGBT adoption, and most have no legality/illegality formalized. I think the ones demanding the right to have children are likely demanding the right to be able to adopt, which isn't possible throughout the United States.
• cbus4life

  BGFalcons82;456480 wrote:What about them? What's your question? Do they have the right to pursue a child? Sure. Do they have a right to adopt a child? Sure. Do they have a right to DEMAND a child be presented to them or it's unconstitutional? Nope.

  
  Where are they demanding that a child be presented to them or its unconstitutional?
• BGFalcons82

  

  cbus4life;457314 wrote:Where are they demanding that a child be presented to them or its unconstitutional?

  
  My original post was to define how the Prop 8 ruling relates to "rights", since America seems to be discussing the right to marriage, the right for free health care, the right for the feds to shut down the internet in times of "crises", etc. I believe, Constitutionally, that it will be hard to deny lesbians and gays the rights of a contractual marriage, based on the 14th Amendment. It will be interesting to watch. In my opinion, I draw the line at anyone claiming a "right" to have children, as that "right" does not exist anywhere and no one can prove that it exists. That's how we got here.
• GeneralsIcer89

  BGFalcons82;457398 wrote:My original post was to define how the Prop 8 ruling relates to "rights", since America seems to be discussing the right to marriage, the right for free health care, the right for the feds to shut down the internet in times of "crises", etc. I believe, Constitutionally, that it will be hard to deny lesbians and gays the rights of a contractual marriage, based on the 14th Amendment. It will be interesting to watch. In my opinion, I draw the line at anyone claiming a "right" to have children, as that "right" does not exist anywhere and no one can prove that it exists. That's how we got here.

  
  So you're defending a point nobody has made...
• BGFalcons82

  

  Maybe not, but I felt it appropriate to define the limits of my agreeing with the Prop 8 decision.
• cbus4life

  Fair enough, thanks BG.
  
  You in Bowling Green this weekend? My fiancee's parents live there, and we talked to them this morning and they were bitching and moaning like crazy because it was just a mess with the students moving in and the tractor pull championships or whatever going on at the same time. All in like 97 degree heat. Would have been enough for me to go off the deep end.
• vball10set

  ^^^or drink heavily
• BGFalcons82

  

  cbus4life;457680 wrote:Fair enough, thanks BG.
  
  You in Bowling Green this weekend? My fiancee's parents live there, and we talked to them this morning and they were bitching and moaning like crazy because it was just a mess with the students moving in and the tractor pull championships or whatever going on at the same time. All in like 97 degree heat. Would have been enough for me to go off the deep end.

  Nope, I don't live there anymore. I try to go back for a home football game every year, though. I do remember move-in days...they were a blast. No school, free from parental control, back with your buddies you haven't talked with in a long time (no internet in the early 80's...just cans and string), and not working. It didn't get any better than move-in weekend for me.
• isadore

  hopefully the California decision will not be overturned,
• FairwoodKing

  isadore;457831 wrote:hopefully the California decision will not be overturned,

  
  Are you referring to the California decision by the voters or the California decision by the judge? I hope the judge's decision is not overturned. The voters were wrong. In a democracy, it is the obligation of the majority to protect the minority.