quade 3
Recommended Posts
Amazon 7
QuoteQuoteQuote
I see. Rediculous.
If you can show me how a sperm to sperm contact can generate a child in a male body, or an egg to egg contact, without any sperm present, can generate a child in a woman's body, then I guess it would be ridiculous. A gay male couple has no way to reproduce without a seperate host for the fetus to survive in while it gestates. A female gay couple cannot reproduce without the inclusiopn of a male somewhere in the mix. SO, it is anatomically impossible for a gay couple to concieve between themselves without an outside host or donor.
Ah, I see, where your confusion is. You seem to think that heterosexual people and gay people have never had sex with members of the opposite faction. That there's never been a case where a person has discovered they're gay after having a child. That there's never been a case where a gay couple has used the egg from one partner and sperm from a donor or the sperm from a partner and the donated egg carried in a surrogate.
You're not saying those are deviant and invalid ways of having children are you? I have it on good authority that thousands of children of straight couples are created that way every day.
No - I am saying that that is a different argument, and that is why I have made myself very clear, in that, my comments are about . . . Pay attention now . . . S P O U S A L support.
You and Amazon are definately having issues tonight with reading comprehension. As hard as you try to, neither of you are going to be able to change my words or spin them how you want them to be. Sorry.
If anyone is having a brain fart its you my dear.. Andy said THIS
QuoteThat has not been the case for quite a long time. In most states - possibly all of them (I'm not taking the time to do a 50-state survey), the laws, rules of court and guidelines regarding spousal support, child support and alimony are gender-neutral.
You are the one wanting to narrow it down to only one of the things he mentioned... I am trying to keep it to what he stated and you replied to.
Personally..... whoever has the financial dominance in any relationship... is the one who needs to take care of their obligations as set forth in that pesky little marriage contract that two parties enter into. If there are children.. they also need to be taken care of. I have seen a whole lot of children kicked to the curb financially when mommy and the children have become a liability in daddies new life.
Quote
If you can show me how a sperm to sperm contact can generate a child in a male body, or an egg to egg contact, without any sperm present, can generate a child in a woman's body, then I guess it would be ridiculous. A gay male couple has no way to reproduce without a seperate host for the fetus to survive in while it gestates. A female gay couple cannot reproduce without the inclusiopn of a male somewhere in the mix. SO, it is anatomically impossible for a gay couple to concieve between themselves without an outside host or donor.
It's biologically impossible for heterosexual couples to have a child when one of them has fertility issues. That hasn't prevented them from acquiring a child (adoption, surrogacy, donated sperm, in vitro, etc) that has to be provided for after a divorce.
The same issues are present for gay married couples.
turtlespeed 212
QuoteI have seen a whole lot of children kicked to the curb financially when mommy and the children have become a liability in daddies new life.
I have seen just as many become more of a paycheck and a time liability when she decides she wants a new life, all at the kids expense emotionally ane the dads expense financially.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
Amazon 7
QuoteQuoteI have seen a whole lot of children kicked to the curb financially when mommy and the children have become a liability in daddies new life.
I have seen just as many become more of a paycheck and a time liability when she decides she wants a new life, all at the kids expense emotionally ane the dads expense financially.
Oh yeah... women and children have always made out like bandits when the man of the house decides to leave the responsibilities behind
turtlespeed 212
QuoteQuote
If you can show me how a sperm to sperm contact can generate a child in a male body, or an egg to egg contact, without any sperm present, can generate a child in a woman's body, then I guess it would be ridiculous. A gay male couple has no way to reproduce without a seperate host for the fetus to survive in while it gestates. A female gay couple cannot reproduce without the inclusiopn of a male somewhere in the mix. SO, it is anatomically impossible for a gay couple to concieve between themselves without an outside host or donor.
It's biologically impossible for heterosexual couples to have a child when one of them has fertility issues. That hasn't prevented them from acquiring a child (adoption, surrogacy, donated sperm, in vitro, etc) that has to be provided for after a divorce.
The same issues are present for gay married couples.
So I reference . . . THIS POST
Whatever the case may be that spawned the child, adoption lagalities and paperwork would need to be present for legal support to be ruled (well, at least morally it would). I am aware that there are a few cases out there where non adoptive adults are required to pay child support regardless of wether the child is their responsibility or not. That doesn't make it right or just, it makes it an injustice to everyone involved.
That said, my argument was that in any case, there would have had to be an outside donor of some kind, and that donor would be the responible psrty, not the other half of the gay couple, so it is a mute point.
Next.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
QuoteQuote
Secondly, who would get the fishnets and pumps, and who would get the wigs?
What a hackneyed, cliched, bigoted statement.
And funny too. Don't forget funny.
riggerrob 561
"... OMG - treat everybody equally as individuals and leave partnering as something that's none of the government's business. what a crazy thought!!
.....................................................................
Agreed!
What other people do - on their days off - is none of my business ... nor should it be a matter of government regulation.
riggerrob 561
Agreed!
Sometimes - in Canada - major political parties wimp out (on issues like abortions or gay marriages)and force judges to decide on laws.
Sometimes - in Canada - major political parties wimp out (on issues like abortions or gay marriages)and force judges to decide on laws.
jmdlr 0
In the end the pro gay marriage movement picked the wrong time to fight this battle. The 9th is the most overturned court and more than likely this will end up before the present USSC which with the 5-4 conservative majority they will lose. It was also a setback for marriage in general because all it did is allow more government intrusion into our lives. I would be willing to bet if the movement would have been to get government out of marriage all together this would have been a done deal long ago.
billvon 2,450
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>In the end the pro gay marriage movement picked the wrong time to
>fight this battle.
Overall I don't think so. The most conservative people are generally the oldest people out there; every poll out there on Prop 8 breaks down along age lines. As they die off, there will be fewer votes against gay marriage.
Likewise, there are a lot of young people growing up in communities where gay marriage is a fact of life. They don't fear it, and see it as no more evil than a black man marrying a white woman. As they reach voting age, they'll tend to vote with the current 18-25 demographic to support marriage.
Even now a majority in California support gay marriage. It's only a matter of time.
>fight this battle.
Overall I don't think so. The most conservative people are generally the oldest people out there; every poll out there on Prop 8 breaks down along age lines. As they die off, there will be fewer votes against gay marriage.
Likewise, there are a lot of young people growing up in communities where gay marriage is a fact of life. They don't fear it, and see it as no more evil than a black man marrying a white woman. As they reach voting age, they'll tend to vote with the current 18-25 demographic to support marriage.
Even now a majority in California support gay marriage. It's only a matter of time.
Andy9o8 0
Quotethis will end up before the present USSC which with the 5-4 conservative majority they will lose.
On this particular issue, I'd call it a 4-4 split, with Kennedy being a hard-to-predict swing vote.
jmdlr 0
I guess you missed the second sentence? This WILL more than likely end up before the PRESENT USSC.
Yeah, I head that said the last thee votesQuoteEven now a majority in California support gay marriage.
quade 3
QuoteQuotethis will end up before the present USSC which with the 5-4 conservative majority they will lose.
On this particular issue, I'd call it a 4-4 split, with Kennedy being a hard-to-predict swing vote.
5-4 decisions are lame no matter what. I'm not proposing that we require 6-3 or greater, but 5-4 always means it's so close it just depends on who died and got replaced under who's administration. I seriously doubt that was the framer's intention.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Shotgun 1
QuoteIt was also a setback for marriage in general because all it did is allow more government intrusion into our lives.
More? How so? It won't change anything in a heterosexual's life, and it won't change anything in a homosexual's life unless that person chooses to get legally married (thereby asking the government to intrude).
QuoteI would be willing to bet if the movement would have been to get government out of marriage all together this would have been a done deal long ago.
You know, I find it interesting (and perhaps telling?) that this is not the route that the Prop 8 supporters (and other such) have taken. If the goal is truly to preserve the sanctity of marriage, then getting the government out of it seems to be the way to go. Well, unless tax breaks and such are sacred parts of "traditional marriage."
jmdlr 0
Asking? They now have no choice. All they did is let Government intrude into more peoples lives.QuoteMore? How so? It won't change anything in a heterosexual's life, and it won't change anything in a homosexual's life unless that person chooses to get legally married (thereby asking the government to intrude).
jmdlr 0
Be careful what you wish for. If for example the appeals court rules against the judge and the plaintiff does not get a 6-3 ruling overturning it the appeals court decisions stands and the movement looses again! If you remember a few years ago Bill V said that a simple majority should not be able to win and then several states including Florida passed the same law by a supper majority and now it will be even longer before it ever has a chance again.Quote5-4 decisions are lame no matter what. I'm not proposing that we require 6-3 or greater, but 5-4 always means it's so close it just depends on who died and got replaced under who's administration. I seriously doubt that was the framer's intention.
Shotgun 1
QuoteAsking? They now have no choice. All they did is let Government intrude into more peoples lives.QuoteMore? How so? It won't change anything in a heterosexual's life, and it won't change anything in a homosexual's life unless that person chooses to get legally married (thereby asking the government to intrude).
Sorry, I guess I'm not following you. In what way will the government now intrude into more people's lives?
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuoteQuotethis will end up before the present USSC which with the 5-4 conservative majority they will lose.
On this particular issue, I'd call it a 4-4 split, with Kennedy being a hard-to-predict swing vote.
5-4 decisions are lame no matter what. I'm not proposing that we require 6-3 or greater, but 5-4 always means it's so close it just depends on who died and got replaced under who's administration. I seriously doubt that was the framer's intention.
Maybe I'm just used to it from having been immersed in the environment for so long. There are a lot of state and federal appellate courts in the US; and closely-split appellate court decisions are such a common a part of the landscape that the average lawyer doesn't even think twice about it.
And I do think the Framers intended it to be. The reason is because they Framed the constitution that (a) the President nominates the federal judiciary, but (b) the Congress must confirm via advise and consent. That is very much by design a political process; and where there is politics there is partisanship.; and where there is partisanship there are closely split decisions. Every office or body subject to this process - including the Supreme Court - reflects this in its composition and its actions.
jmdlr 0
It was exactly their intention............to prevent a tie so that a decision could be made.QuoteI seriously doubt that was the framer's intention.
quade 3
QuoteIt was exactly their intention............to prevent a tie so that a decision could be made.QuoteI seriously doubt that was the framer's intention.
You and the counselor miss the point. The 5-4 was clearly intended, but the blatant partisanship that has been shown by its use in the last decade or so certainly wasn't.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuoteIt was exactly their intention............to prevent a tie so that a decision could be made.QuoteI seriously doubt that was the framer's intention.
You and the counselor miss the point. The 5-4 was clearly intended, but the blatant partisanship that has been shown by its use in the last decade or so certainly wasn't.
I say it was; at the very least, it was anticipated.
I don't need to spin your words; they're ridiculous to begin with.
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites