(no subject)
Eli's post prompted me to flip on TVW as well. i turned it on just in time to see the closing statements of the attorneys opposing same-sex marriage. let's see if i can sum this up in an open, understanding, non-judgemental manner...
closer #1: had he have competed, this man would have surely lost at 1A mock-trial. he began his argument stating "only through sexual intercouse between a man and a woman, can a child be produced." a justice interuptted him and said, in a longer and more legal way, "your wrong." he then said, "o, i realize, but, moving on, a child cannot be produced from intercourse between homosexuals. sex between a man and a woman can produce a child, whether planned or un-planned, and we hope planned, and in the case of invetro fertilization, extreme measures are reached to plan for the child, so that is appropriate. we [i don't know who "we" was...] do not promote pre-marital sex because if a child is produced, we want it to be raised in the best environment, which is with a mother and father. [at this point the judes kept interupting him, and he just stammered and rambled on.] he also pointed out about how there use to be laws against sex outside of marriage, cause but we no longer have those laws. (thanks for the reminder retard...)
my first thought was - you are arguing infront of the state surpreme court? you are an idiot. 2nd thought - well, if you want children raised in an environment that wants those children, and straight couples that use invetro fertilization to get pregnant are really committed, and it is ok if staight couple don't want kids but have them anyway, remind why it isn't good for a same-sex couple that goes through twice as much trouble as a straight couple to rear a child? his argument doesn't even justify a better thought out rebuttal than my rambling above, let alone more, so i'm moving on.
closer #2: he pointed out that 71% of kids who drop out of school grew up without a father. first, maybe it had to do with the fact that it was a single parent home that probaly had a lot more serious problems than just not having daddy come home everynight. 2 - wouldn't that technically mean that a gay couple, with two fathers would then provide twice as much fatherly love then in a straight couple, and therefore be better? (if really just not having a male father figure around was what the problem...)
so, i heard a whole bunch about who horribly kids would be hurt if they grow up in an environment different than one with a mom and a dad. alright, fine by me. so, if you are a single parent, or even just divorced and don't have a new spouse, the state should take away your children until you find a spouse. clearly, that is in the childs best interest. also, lets let all same sex couples who don't intend to become parents get married, cause they aren't harming any children that way. o, and you know all though same sex couples that alreay have kids (wait... why is that... is it becuase the law says they can? o! that's right!)let's not let them get married, because having legal rights that would protect one another and, most of all, the kids if something were to happen to one, well, that would just be insane.
so i've rambled unintelligablly for awhile now. i am acutally more excited than pissed off, believe it or not. with lawyers and legal points (if you can call them legal points) like what i saw, and the reactions and questions (most importantly, the phrasing and tone of voice of those questions) of the justices... same-sex couples will be given their rights within a few short months.
closer #1: had he have competed, this man would have surely lost at 1A mock-trial. he began his argument stating "only through sexual intercouse between a man and a woman, can a child be produced." a justice interuptted him and said, in a longer and more legal way, "your wrong." he then said, "o, i realize, but, moving on, a child cannot be produced from intercourse between homosexuals. sex between a man and a woman can produce a child, whether planned or un-planned, and we hope planned, and in the case of invetro fertilization, extreme measures are reached to plan for the child, so that is appropriate. we [i don't know who "we" was...] do not promote pre-marital sex because if a child is produced, we want it to be raised in the best environment, which is with a mother and father. [at this point the judes kept interupting him, and he just stammered and rambled on.] he also pointed out about how there use to be laws against sex outside of marriage, cause but we no longer have those laws. (thanks for the reminder retard...)
my first thought was - you are arguing infront of the state surpreme court? you are an idiot. 2nd thought - well, if you want children raised in an environment that wants those children, and straight couples that use invetro fertilization to get pregnant are really committed, and it is ok if staight couple don't want kids but have them anyway, remind why it isn't good for a same-sex couple that goes through twice as much trouble as a straight couple to rear a child? his argument doesn't even justify a better thought out rebuttal than my rambling above, let alone more, so i'm moving on.
closer #2: he pointed out that 71% of kids who drop out of school grew up without a father. first, maybe it had to do with the fact that it was a single parent home that probaly had a lot more serious problems than just not having daddy come home everynight. 2 - wouldn't that technically mean that a gay couple, with two fathers would then provide twice as much fatherly love then in a straight couple, and therefore be better? (if really just not having a male father figure around was what the problem...)
so, i heard a whole bunch about who horribly kids would be hurt if they grow up in an environment different than one with a mom and a dad. alright, fine by me. so, if you are a single parent, or even just divorced and don't have a new spouse, the state should take away your children until you find a spouse. clearly, that is in the childs best interest. also, lets let all same sex couples who don't intend to become parents get married, cause they aren't harming any children that way. o, and you know all though same sex couples that alreay have kids (wait... why is that... is it becuase the law says they can? o! that's right!)let's not let them get married, because having legal rights that would protect one another and, most of all, the kids if something were to happen to one, well, that would just be insane.
so i've rambled unintelligablly for awhile now. i am acutally more excited than pissed off, believe it or not. with lawyers and legal points (if you can call them legal points) like what i saw, and the reactions and questions (most importantly, the phrasing and tone of voice of those questions) of the justices... same-sex couples will be given their rights within a few short months.