Prop 8?

That would very likely be the statistics for California alone -- statistics can never be that accurate in this case for some couples or even singles will not answer yes or no to even being gay.

Here's the statistics researched by About.com:

http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm

Next.

flyboy, I welcome challenges to my posts, but also appreciate some source that what I said is not true or not supported by outside reliable sources.

That there may not be many young infants to adobt from foster homes based on age is a real problem, but some older children are adopted by people - including, I believe, by gays and lesbian couples.

I think the real issue is what would happen to all the children if gays and lesbians didn't adopt any child.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ages+of+children+in+foster+care&aq=f&oq=

Here is a source for my post. I did not have it when I posted. I was merely expressing my thoughts from several anecdotal experiences I have heard or read about. As I said I agree with most of your earlier posts on this thread. Gayfoster parenting and adoption are invaluable in placing older hard to place juveniles. Also Acts 2 and 3 of "Torch Song Trilogy" could not exist without it.

http://www.cwla.org/programs/fostercare/factsheet.htm

This is the URL I meant to post. The first was the Google source that contained this one.

however, you gotta know that gays feel just as entitled to adopt babies as heterosexuals, that if they are not allowed to do so it will be because pf discrimination and homophobia in their minds. Gays will not for long be willing to accepts the rejects of the adoption market (older kids) as the best that they can do.

Debra you obviously have some issue deep at heart that troubles you and makes you say mean things to complete strangers. Your need to always be right, regardless the cost, is understandable, but I think unecessary. So, you can leave your strawman and ad hominem arguments at home.



Really, I thought that by citing Loving v. Virginia, which I have read and which I understand. I have even read the cases it cites in designating marriage as a right. I have even read the cases that followed it, which discuss whether marriage even is a right. I even cited them. You fool no one with statements like this. And, you provide no citations or references for your own statements.



As you said yourself, "The Court in Loving never considered whether or not the Loving marriage was "consummated." " Loving did not deal with marriage. It dealt with the criminlization of miscegenation. Its reference to marriage as a right was dicta, meaning not a part of its ruling. Prior to 1966 the supreme court never was asked nor did it rule that marriage was a right. It alluded to such, but always in dicta. If you want the citation for that, go to Fundamental Principles of Family Law, Second Edition, Lynn D. Wardle, page 58.

The court there never held that the choice was a fundamental right. It said, in dicta, "the fredom to marry or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and canot be infringed by the State." (Id. p. 61). This is not the same as "the choice of whom to marry resides with the individual." If anything, the court said, "the choice of which race to marry resides with the individual." To expand this dicta to mean that we have to accept SSM is beyond the intention and context of the court.

I never said that the Loving court considered whether it had been consummated, as you fallaciously state. I said, "Loving considered a consummate marriage." Thus, the court presummed that the marriage was consummated, as required by Virginia and Washington DC, where they were actually married.



No, there are not. Homosexuals cannot consummate their marriage by performing a procreative act. This is the meaning of consummation. Not that the act results in procreation, but that the person is able to perform the act. And, generally, a marriage performed for an 80-year old on his death bed may be challenged for several other reasons (capacity being one of them).



Where is your citation for this one? Because you are confusing several issues of Constitutional Law. When refering to Equal Protection and discrimination, the courts use that test ONLY when the class is "SUSPECT", or meets three criteria. In re Marriage Cases waived the most important one, immutable characteristic, simply because religion cannot be discriminated against and it is not an immutable characteristic. This is because *everybody with me now* religion gets its own Constitutional provision protecting it from discrimination. (In re Marraige Cases, p. 842; Cal Const Art 1 Sec 4). Religion has never been subject to Equal Protection analysis. That analysis is preserved for unconsidered distinctions, such as race. Gender doesn't even that get kind of scrutiny. It gets intermediate scrutiny. Other classifications get rational basis review, which means that the gov only has to have a rational basis for distinguishing along the lines it does (age falls under this category). So, please, again, I implore you to only refer to the law when you know it. Otherwise, you spread bad information for everyone to see. I'm really tryign to save you from yourself, as much as everyone else from your mistaken information.

As far as I can tell, I am in agreement with you on this one though. But I can't help but think that your analysis is lacking. You see, you assume that the state has no interest in preserving marriage. But it does. In fact, the CA SC even says it, several times, in the In re Marriage Cases. In fact, it is one of the most compelling of state interests. And this law is narrowly tailored to preserving that definition: it is exactly the same. You, however, lack a compelling interest in extending the definition. Yes, perhapos a good one, but one that lacks proper analysis.



Where are your citations for these conclusions? First of all, how is it seperate? How is it unequal? And, as we will get to later, how are the relationships equal?



That's kinda my point, right? Look, we know that speech is fundamental because it is specifically provided for in the Constitution. Other rights have been read into the Constitution (both Fed and State), but in the end, none of them are universal. I never said that speech wasn't fundamental or universal, I simply said that the right to marry is not universal. And you helped me out by pointing out that even ones we hold so dear, like speech and religion, are not entirely protected. So, why is it that we can abridge speech, but not marriage? Why is it that speech, the first right, is less protected than marriage? You seem to take that stand, but I don't. I think marriage has its limits, just like speech.



I just want to clarify this one, and its no big thing. State's cannot mandate public school attendance. They can mandate school attendance, but not public school attendence. (Prince v Mass; Wisconsin v. Yoder; Pierce v Society of Sisters).



Where is your citation for this one? Because, as far as I can tell, this is not true for most jurisdictions. (American Jurisprudence, Schools, Sec. 242). It is interesting though. While there is a compelling interest in having state run schools to educate the public, it has not created a fundamental right. Yet, the compelling state interest in marriage and in preserving it somehow rises to that level of fundamental right, so much so that it cannot be infringed for any reason. Not even to protect the very definition that was used when the right was first uttered.



That is true to a point. I wonder if you would fight this hard to protect the class of people who believe in a "mythology." Or, would you use their beliefs against them? Would you persecute them for their faith? Would you condemn them to secondary class status? Oh, wait, I think you already have. So, I know your answers to those.

But to answer the assumption posed in your unverified statement: I think the government should protect every class of citizen. In fact, I even said that: Homosexuals deserve to have their relationships recognized. But, going back to your whole "necessary and compelling" analysis: it is not necessary to call those relationships "marriages" to achieve that goal of protection. Giving them something that is worthy of their distinctly and fundamentally different relatinships satisfies that goal perfectly.

Finally, you get to my "unsupported conclusion." But, for one, I don't see you supporting yourself in refuting my little analogy. And, for another, you failed completely to grasp the concept. Look closely, and you will see that I specifically refered to the couples. And I ask you to please refute the conclusion that a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple will be biologically similar. Because if you have one man and one woman compared to two men or two women, you will have obvious differences between the two groups. I guess I could use some sources to proove that to you, but I would have thought that high school bio helped you figure that one out.

And as for the other -logicallies, well, I have to rest on the same common sense source. If you can refute the fact, then you have really done something tremendous.

Finally, I am sorry that you failed to see how I followed my own advice. I feel strongly, perhaps just as strongly as you do about your cause, that marriage should be preserved, and has been. I expressed my respect for homosexuals by saying they deserve respect and something that reflects their relationships. I expressed respect for their rights, and I agree with Fam Code 297.5 which grants them equality. I wonder, however, how you have shown any respect.

All I ask is that you stop the claims that Prop 8 violates the constitution, because it doesn't. (And here's my proof) Similar amendments have been enacted in 30 states, and some even go further in not even allowing Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions. None of these has been found unconstitutional, even under federal analysis. The one court that was asked that question said it does not violate the US Constitution (Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 8th Circ 2006) Yes, arguments can be made, but do not confuse an argument for fact.

Please, just understand that we do not think that this is an equality issue, because homosexuals have an equal system for their relationships. One that grants them just as much respect, rights, benefits, and obligations as I will have with my fiancee. I understand that you don't want to see that, but that is how I see it. I think it is fair, equal, and proper. And so do 6.8 million other Californians, 29 other states, and most of the world (only six countries in the world allow same-sex marriage: Netherlands (2001), Belgium (2003), Canada (2005), Spain (2005) and the US (2003). (Fundamental Principles of Family Law, supra, p. 118).

I leave you with a great quote by Gen. Colin Powell: "Skin Color is a benign non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument." (Id., at 116).

After what you've said here, they'd have good reason to suspect exactly that hawkeye10. If a gay couple can provide a stable home for a child but they are passed up for a heterosexual couple that offers less only because they are gay, this would be a pretty natural conclusion. Further, "children" does not specifically mean "babies."


First off I resent the notion of anyone be them gay or straight that a newborn has more value than a older child. I really hate this sentiment. I worked with underprivileged youth for several summers and many of which were in foster care or in situations like a boys and girls home. Those kids deserve homes too.

Having said that, this entire discussion is a complete derailment. There is zero obligation by law to have children in marriage nor does the incapability to bear a child by natural means exclude you from marriage. The cold rational conclusion then is that the issue of birth and childbearing is a separate one.

T
K
O

only up to the point were the individual can be reasonably determined to be a criminal or an unhealthy person, to include mentally unhealthy. Homosexuals have been determined to be both in the not to distant past. I reject the notion that the movement towards individual freedom from social constraints (individual liberty) is either continuous, inevitable, or irreversible. The constitution has supported far less personal liberty from the desires of the majority than is currently the case, and could again. All we need to do is to decide to do it.

Please explain how a gay or lesbian is "determined to be criminal or an (mentally) unhealthy person?"

homosexuality was till 1972? listed as a mental ailment, and homosexuality laws (sodomy for instance) have been on the books forever, a few of which remain.


http://allpsych.com/disorders/dsm.html

Out of total ignorance. You'll never grow up and/or grow out of your bigotry.

As I've repeated several times, homosexuality is "normal" in animals. Many animals perform homosexual acts. They are "born" that way. Because chemicals in the brain does funny things to animals, some boys have the brain of a girl and visa-versa. They are never "comfortable" in their body relative to their brain.

Just as long as they do not commit sex crimes (and we know heterosexuals commit sex crimes), they should be allowed to love a partner of their choice without the bigotry of small minded minions like yourself.

you don't pay attention...the cause of homosexuality is not known, nor is it known if it can be reversed.

and you have the right to your opinion. But not everyone agrees with you, and you don't have the right to attempt to bully and name call your way into getting your way.

I'm sure you know "hysteria" used to be a medical diagnosis too. The old therapy was the invention of the vibrator. It was treated as a unhealthy mental condition. The truth was however quite simple, and quite natural.

Women get horny too.

I suppose in your world of gay conspiracy you can make room for thoughts of some "loose" woman sneaking into the respected ranks of the world of medicine to get it removed from the list to normalize and their perverse impulses at the "cost" of the majority.

Don't you get it? We've been here before. Again, and again we return here. Each time with a new threat to unravel the cloth of society and then what?

Nothing exceptional at all. Society continues. The sun still rises. We live, we die.


No doubt you reject it. But at this point, you're not defending your ideas anymore, you're defending your ego. I can't nor do I care to argue with your opinion. Opinions can't be proven wrong. One can only prove that they are opinions, and attempt to illustrate the degree of consideration the individual took when crafting them.


You are correct. History validates these words. It galvanizes them in fact. One only needs to look at our past and see the product of when we choose to abuse power in numbers.

The statement however is simply one of "might makes right," and at the end of the day it won't resolve your insecurities. The ability to defame a minority won't vindicate your views. It only makes you into a monster.


...unless you have the majority right? Then you're free to name call, bully, harass, threaten, or fire the minority to get your way.

You're a coward.

T
K
O

You are the one trying to "bully" your way through people's equal rights. "The cause of homosexuality" is natural; that's been proven by the simple fact that other animals practice it. Your inability to accept nature is your problem; especially since your's is based on some cockamayme religous belief that's been proven to be without evidence or logic. Your god doesn't exist; homosexual practice is universal in all cultures of humanity.

My so-called opinion is based on humanity and equal rights; your's is based on ignorance and homophobic bigotry.

so are you goint to go on record that rape should be perfectly fine? It is often found in nature you know....

of course not, your argument holds no water. While I agree that some humans have brains the at least predispose them to homosexual behaviour, we can choose to accept or at least tolerate it, or not. I actually believe that we should more often than not conform to nature, leave every individual free to act out our nature, but it is not an imperative...it is not a roadmap the society must follow re homosexuality. If you want society to accept or tolerate homosexuality then you need to make an argument for why society should (we never MUST). That Homosexuals feel that they should have the right is a non starter, because so does every other sexual deviant and society generally says no. That it is found it nature does not work as I pointed out above.......Have you got anything else?

First off, how can CI be on the record about rape when he never even mentioned it? You're only making a fool out of yourself. A rapist makes a victim of someone. A homosexual does not. Is this all you've got?

T
K
O

It see strange that someone can state that they resent how the universe work in any regard.

The value of a newborn is of course greater then some child that is very likely to come into a family with all kind of problems that his or her upbringing in foster care or his first family had set firmly into his or her personality.

Let resent that the sun is hot in the summer time or too cold in the winter time.

times, homosexuality is "normal" in animals
----------------------------------------------------------
By that logic cancer is also normal in animals and heart attacks and old age and any other medical conditions or other conditions that we share with animals, so what?

A misdirected sex drive is not something only humans can suffer from but once more so what?

What does your statement prove concerning human homosexuality?

We aren't talking about how the universe works. To place a higher value on one orphan over another is a sentiment I resent. Sentiment is not a force of nature.

A new born is not of greater value. Perhaps easier to raise, but the difficulty to raise a child and their value as a person who deserves love and a home are not linear.

Let us understand that the sun is not hotter in either season; that it is only the distance between us and it that drives our perception. Let us understand that the earth does not choose it's position. Let us start making relevant analogies in the future.

The point is that it's not a choice. We can't simply declare homosexuality "unnatural."

The point is that it's not a choice. How can it be misdirected? They are directing their sexuality exactly where their biologically affinity tells them to.

The point is that it's not a choice.

Beyond that, in terms of social order and law, we rule on the choices of people, not the nature. This drives a pretty distinct wedge between gay marriage versus polygamy and incestuous marriage. E.g. - Polygamist ideals are 100% learned, where as a person is born gay and is abiding by their own natural order.

Stop trying to force your beliefs on others.

T
K
O

Hell it is a medical condition or a disorder and as such you do have some control in whether you seek treatment or not for example or if you take part in a subculture to promote this form of a disorder,

Of course the APA had force it membership not to offer any form of treatment, kind of like if the deaf community could force doctors not to offer the new technology that bypass the ears to allow some form of hearing, as if a lack of hearing is not somehow a disorder.

You do know that there are people in the deaf community that would love to have the power that the homosexual community had exercise as they can foresee their deaf sub-culture and way of life ending as deaf children are fitted with this new technology?

The very same kind of arguments could be used after all there are deaf animals in nature so being deaf is a completely natural state of being and surely not a choice.