A gay couple might also have a friend who would be willing to do this as well.
I have friends who are a lesbian couple, and they got a friend to "donate" so they could have a kid. Worked out pretty well all around. The guy sees it as beating the system -- he gets to propagate his genes while avoiding the responsibilities of fatherhood.
I don't mean to imply that it is either conscious or universal, simply natural.
Then why issue a blanket statement like that?
I said exactly what I meant.
Yes, there are ways around it, and the feeling is surely irrational, but that's how many people feel. As for whether it is a result of social conditioning, considering where the sentiment seems strongest, that's probably true. But that's the case with most types of morality. Being an imposed social construct isn't enough to make something wrong. Also, I don't think it even has to be an issue of control. There are many stories of children coming out to their parents, who are shocked, but eventually come around and become supportive. They weren't expecting or wishing for their kids to be gay, and there's nothing wrong with that.
People have a natural desire to not want their kids to be gay.
Justify, man.
If your children are gay, they will not continue your bloodline by producing grandchildren for you.
By that logic noone would want to look after foster kids or at least be opposed to the idea. With an increase in gay couples you could start to see a deficit of children without parents. Even if you don't share the same genes as your parents, they are still your parents.
I'm both surprised and dismayed at the people in my state. Specifically, those in the central valley. We're supposedly the most progressive state. I'm sure that there will be a lot of appeals. Likely, this will be repealed in the next election. At least I hope so.
That's really a common misconception. Yeah, we've got SF and LA, but we've also got the central valley, Orange County, San Diego, and the Inland Empire.
Oh motherfucker, I typed this all out and then backspace accidentally made me move back a page. UGH. Well, here we go again.
Question: In a State that does not recognize gay and lesbian marriages as legal what would happen if a male and female married, and then one of them had a sex change? Would their marriage still be recognized, even if they went through the entire process to have their gender legally changed? Also, if the same sex couple was still considered married, would that set a precedent for gay and lesbian marriage in that State?
This is exactly why the position that marriage should be between "one man and one woman" is so silly. In addition to the points Mrs. MacRoss made above, biological sex is actually more like a continuum than two distinct categories. Looking at the full range of phenotypic variation possible in humans, there are closer to five sexes (or even more), based on the combination of sexual organs and/or secondary sex characteristics people can have. Depending on what criteria you use, approximately 1 to 3 percent of people are born intersexed, meaning they have ambiguous genitalia. Applying the more conservative prevalence rate to US population data from 2007, that would mean that around 3,011,399 Americans are neither biologically male or biologically female.
In light of that, how is it even feasible to establish marriage as between one man and one woman, or ensure a law like that is properly enforced? What are you going to do - get sex inspectors to examine people when they apply for a marriage license? Even if you did, is just or humane to deny the right to marry to over THREE MILLION Americans? And even if this is made into a matter of identity or social recognition - ie, marriage between one person who identifies as a man, and one person who identifies as a woman - what about transgendered people, cross-dressers, or foreigners with alternative sexual identities who are naturalized as citizens? People need to accept the fact that our cultural ideals don't always match up with reality, especially when it comes to issues of sex and gender. The only humane and reasonable way to handle this is to admit that we can't force marriage to be between solely a man and a woman, and that people should not be denied the ability to marry on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity.
I voted against 8, but I don't particularly care that it passed. What I found most interesting about this whole thing is the clamor prop 8 opponents have made, especially since one of their most common arguments is the injustice of discriminating against gays when gays being allowed to marry each other does not affect other people. By the same reasoning, shouldn't gays NOT being allowed to marry not affect other people either? Can someone who buys into this particular argument explain this to me? No slippery slope please.
By the same reasoning, shouldn't gays NOT being allowed to marry not affect other people either?
I don't follow your logic. If gays are allowed to marry, it's good for them, neutral for everybody else. If gays are NOT allowed to marry, it's bad for them, and neutral for everybody else. Where's the problem?
What I found most interesting about this whole thing is the clamor prop 8 opponents have made, especially since one of their most common arguments is the injustice of discriminating against gays when gays being allowed to marry each other does not affect other people. By the same reasoning, shouldn't gays NOT being allowed to marry not affect other people either? Can someone who buys into this particular argument explain this to me? No slippery slope please.
The issue is a rights issue. If gays are legally allowed to marry, their right to marriage is fulfilled, and no one else's rights are infringed upon. But if gays are not legally allowed to marry, then THEY are harmed because they are being denied a right on the basis of an immutable characteristic.
Maybe it is just the area I live in, but I have heard whining all day about this result. 'Move to Canada' threats, racism against socially conservative (on gay marriage, at least) blacks and Hispanics, and general complaining. Presumably not all those people were gay.
The issue is a rights issue. If gays are legally allowed to marry, their right to marriage is fulfilled, and no one else's rights are infringed upon. But if gays arenotlegally allowed to marry, then THEY are harmed because they are being denied a right on the basis of an immutable characteristic.
It is by no means clear that this is a right gays have. In fact, my understanding is that as of today, the California state constitution says quite clearly that gays do not have the right to marry others of the same gender.
Most of the arguments I heard from Yes on 8 proponents are faith based, going along the lines of "My religious rights are being infringed upon because I don't want my kids thinking that gay marriage is okay. Marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else can be considered marriage."
Maybe it is just the area I live in, but I have heard whining all day about this result. 'Move to Canada' threats, racism against socially conservative (on gay marriage, at least) blacks and Hispanics, and general complaining. Presumably not all those people were gay.
You don't need to be gay or a member of a persecuted group to support members of said group achieving full recognition of their rights.
Most of the arguments I heard from Yes on 8 proponents are faith based, going along the lines of "My religious rights are being infringed upon because I don't want my kids thinking that gay marriage is okay. Marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else can be considered marriage."
There's a difference between a right and a belief. Rights are your abilities to do certain things based on your status as a human being or as a citizen of a certain country. For example, the right to marry, the right to free speech, the right to assemble peacibly, et cetera. A belief is a feeling or opinion. If gay marriage is recognized, it may well contradict these people's beliefs, but it by no means impinges on their freedoms in any way.
Marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else can be considered marriage."
No offense to you social progressives, but it's been that way for many, many centuries. If we legalize gay marriage under the pretense of "it's only fair," then what's the stop the polygamists getting the same rights, or man marrying a man and a woman, or marrying a goat.
As a math student, I have a lot of sympathy for a defintional argument. Faith need not come into it at all. If marriage is defined as being a specific contract between a man and a woman, then that's the defintion. Anything that is not between a man and a woman will not be marriage. This definition has been upheld twice by state initiative. Likewise, if the definition were to be changed to allow for any two consenting adult people, then the new 'marriage' would still not include polygamy, or bestiality. I don't understand how the 'man marrying a man and a woman' case is distinct from polygamy.
You don't need to be gay or a member of a persecuted group to support members of said group achieving full recognition of their rights.
Of course not, and if it were only those persecuted who ever stood up for their rights, this would easily lead to a tyranny of the majority. My point is that it seems contradictory, or at least ironic, that those who argued their case largely on a premise of 'it doesn't affect anyone else' should act like it does affect them so strongly when the measure passed.
biological sex is actually more like a continuum than two distinct categories.
I'm sure you figured I'd say something here.
I agree with the gist of your post 100%. I would, however, make a technical argument that it's not entirely accurate to say that biological sex is "more like a continuum." There are definitely two distinct sexes with associated phenotypes that occur in the vast majority of cases. Occurrences of intersex individuals, ambiguous genitalia, additional sex chromosome mutations, and the like are all the result of mutations and recombination errors, and are (relatively speaking) rare, in comparison to other sorts of genetic anomalies. Many of these anomalies also result in sterility, so I wouldn't say that they're biologically functional sexes per se. It's a bit off to say that there's a true continuum of sexes in humans.
Culturally, though, I agree completely. It's stupid to say that only a "man and a woman" can marry when there's any level of occurrence of sexual ambiguity. Or, y'know, just in general. People need to remove their heads from their asses and just deal with it. Seriously.
Marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else can be considered marriage."
No offense to you social progressives, but it's been that way for many, many centuries. If we legalize gay marriage under the pretense of "it's only fair," then what's the stop the polygamists getting the same rights, or man marrying a man and a woman, or marrying a goat.
And women were property for many, many centuries. So were black people.
And comparing homosexuality to bestiality is laughable. Or infuriating, depending on the audience.
EDIT: But if you need a clarification, a goat can't give consent, nor can it sign a contract. Two (or three, or eight) humans sure as fuck can, though.
Comments
Yes, there are ways around it, and the feeling is surely irrational, but that's how many people feel.
As for whether it is a result of social conditioning, considering where the sentiment seems strongest, that's probably true. But that's the case with most types of morality. Being an imposed social construct isn't enough to make something wrong.
Also, I don't think it even has to be an issue of control. There are many stories of children coming out to their parents, who are shocked, but eventually come around and become supportive. They weren't expecting or wishing for their kids to be gay, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Even if you don't share the same genes as your parents, they are still your parents.
I am very disappointed with my fellow Californians.
In light of that, how is it even feasible to establish marriage as between one man and one woman, or ensure a law like that is properly enforced? What are you going to do - get sex inspectors to examine people when they apply for a marriage license? Even if you did, is just or humane to deny the right to marry to over THREE MILLION Americans? And even if this is made into a matter of identity or social recognition - ie, marriage between one person who identifies as a man, and one person who identifies as a woman - what about transgendered people, cross-dressers, or foreigners with alternative sexual identities who are naturalized as citizens? People need to accept the fact that our cultural ideals don't always match up with reality, especially when it comes to issues of sex and gender. The only humane and reasonable way to handle this is to admit that we can't force marriage to be between solely a man and a woman, and that people should not be denied the ability to marry on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Sources:
The Five Sexes, Anne Fausto-Sterling.
Call the Sex Inspectors, William O. Beeman
Wikipedia.
I am an anthropologist.
edit: You should read Middlesex, Fred. It's a really good novel.
What I found most interesting about this whole thing is the clamor prop 8 opponents have made, especially since one of their most common arguments is the injustice of discriminating against gays when gays being allowed to marry each other does not affect other people. By the same reasoning, shouldn't gays NOT being allowed to marry not affect other people either?
Can someone who buys into this particular argument explain this to me? No slippery slope please.
If marriage is defined as being a specific contract between a man and a woman, then that's the defintion. Anything that is not between a man and a woman will not be marriage. This definition has been upheld twice by state initiative.
Likewise, if the definition were to be changed to allow for any two consenting adult people, then the new 'marriage' would still not include polygamy, or bestiality. I don't understand how the 'man marrying a man and a woman' case is distinct from polygamy. Of course not, and if it were only those persecuted who ever stood up for their rights, this would easily lead to a tyranny of the majority. My point is that it seems contradictory, or at least ironic, that those who argued their case largely on a premise of 'it doesn't affect anyone else' should act like it does affect them so strongly when the measure passed.
I agree with the gist of your post 100%. I would, however, make a technical argument that it's not entirely accurate to say that biological sex is "more like a continuum." There are definitely two distinct sexes with associated phenotypes that occur in the vast majority of cases. Occurrences of intersex individuals, ambiguous genitalia, additional sex chromosome mutations, and the like are all the result of mutations and recombination errors, and are (relatively speaking) rare, in comparison to other sorts of genetic anomalies. Many of these anomalies also result in sterility, so I wouldn't say that they're biologically functional sexes per se. It's a bit off to say that there's a true continuum of sexes in humans.
Culturally, though, I agree completely. It's stupid to say that only a "man and a woman" can marry when there's any level of occurrence of sexual ambiguity. Or, y'know, just in general. People need to remove their heads from their asses and just deal with it. Seriously.
And comparing homosexuality to bestiality is laughable. Or infuriating, depending on the audience.
EDIT: But if you need a clarification, a goat can't give consent, nor can it sign a contract. Two (or three, or eight) humans sure as fuck can, though.