LA Times Reminds Us: We Hate 8

In its ongoing effort to supplant homosexuality niche publications, the Los Angeles Times editorial board reminded us that they are in favor of marriage neutering and judicial tyranny in support of marriage neutering. The headline for today's editorial is:

Parenting should be a nonissue in gay marriage debate Supporters of Proposition 8 have made child-rearing a focus of the trial. But no other group is prohibited from marrying because of parental abilities, or lack thereof.

Off we go...

It wasn't surprising that the federal trial on Proposition 8 in January confirmed that the same-sex marriage ban is destructive to family life and discriminatory toward a group that has historically been subject to abuse.

How did it confirm that?

They go on to recount some of their favorite moments of the trial, then say that it is the motivation of voters that matters. If that is true, we should have secondary ballot spaces with multiple choices and write-in options so that voters can explain why they are voting for or against a certain law. Better yet, how about lie detector sessions?

They then cite the study I discussed earlier in which lesbians who deliberately made babies without a father around (through sperm donation) reported to people interested in planned same-sex or single parenting by lesbians that their children have turned out great.

Just as we wouldn't propose taking marriage away from heterosexual couples even though their children might not do as well as those of lesbians, there is nothing reasonable about denying marriage to same-sex couples based on judgments about child-rearing or anything else concerning the perceived quality of their marriages.

This statement ignores the fact that they haven't made the case why it is reasonable to change marriage licensing in the first place. There is nothing reasonable about it – it is purely based on emotions and feelings. Homosexual people feel attracted to people of the same sex. They want to change state marriage licensing so they can get a license without forming the kind of relationship for which the license was created. The burden of proof is on the side that wants to change something so ingrained in law.

[Much, much more after the jump.]

Despite what Proposition 8 supporters have tried to argue during the trial, marriage is not solely about procreation and raising children; for many couples, that's not even a factor.

Hello, Strawman. My argument is that the state has an interest in the uniting of a bride and groom in marriage that is doesn't have with other kinds of relationships, because it is the only kind of relationship that may naturally (and usually does) produce children, in a cohesive partnership that unites both basic elements of society, and provides the next generation of citizens with a legally, financially, socially, spiritually bonded role model, guardian, nurturer, and provider from each of the two sexes. Bride+groom pairings are demonstrably, objectively different from same-sex pairings, and the state is allowed to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently.

And same-sex couples who want children will have them whether or not they have a marriage license.

That's what domestic partnerships are for. But we should not encourage people to create children in situations where they know the child will not have a mother or not have a father. As I've asked before, why are people who normally appeal to nature and naturalistic evolution so quick to advocate ignoring nature when it comes to sexual reproduction? There is such thing as asexual reproduction. Nature didn't give that to human beings.

Society doesn't force single parents to marry, even though there's a general presumption that having two parents would be better for the children. It doesn't force teenagers, still children themselves, to give up their children to older couples, or forbid people with kooky parenting theories to wed.

Yes, people have "reproductive rights" and marriage is voluntary, and people have parental rights unless they prove themselves so unfit that the state takes away their children. But until the gender confusion advocates change this, the fact is that the state has birth certificates with two categories – male and female. Despite what our confused critics say, in general, it is an objective fact that almost everybody is either male or female. When someone applied for a marriage license from the state, it can be objectively verified that one of them is male, and the other is female, and there is no right to a state-issued license in the first place. So, while it would be great if we could ensure that everybody would be good parents and would raise children within wedlock, there are only so many things we can do. One of them is keep marriage distinct from nonmarriage.

Only gay and lesbian couples are singled out for this judgment of whether they're good enough to marry and have children.

It is not a matter of "good enough" – it is a fact that same-sex pairings are not the same as the uniting of a man and a woman, and a fact that no such pairings will ever naturally produce children or provide children with both a mother and a father. Their statement is like saying that only lactose intolerant people are singled out for not being able to drink milk. They can drink milk if they want to – but we're not going to force them to drink milk. But they shouldn't be able to insist to the rest of us that water is milk, and they shouldn't be able to force the FDA to label water as milk.

The millions of people who have been watching with intense interest as the story of same-sex marriage unfolds have a legitimate stake in seeing and hearing the arguments that will determine whether gays and lesbians in California are granted the basic right to form families with the same legal status as all other families.

There is no "basic right" to form a family without a mother or without a father. You can naturally form a family, or at least a parent-child relationship, if a biological mother and a biological father interact, even if just for a moment.

The paper is taking comments, and I urge you to leave one. There was only when posted when I read the editorial, from “David in Houston” at 6:04 AM June 16, 2010:

Animus and bigotry are the only reasons that people voted for Prop. 8.

This is an assumption, one that I can say with certainty is wrong. It is also bigoted itself.

People CHOOSE to be religious.

Now hold on there. A lot of people insist they have always known their religion, or felt an irresistible call to that religion. Who are you to sat that is any less valid than someone knowing they are gay or lesbian? Also, some researchers claim to have found parts of the brain and brain functions related to religious belief, as if that is proof that someone was born with a tendency towards their religious beliefs. Also, there is an enumerated Constitutional right to freedom of religion. There is no such enumeration of a right to a state license or homosexual behavior.

A religious belief (homosexuality is immoral) is not a LEGAL reason to deny same-sex couples the opportunity to marry.

One need not believe that homosexual behavior is immoral to support the notion that the state should keep the bride+groom requirement in marriage licensing. People are allowed to vote based on any or no reason. That is their legal right. Some people feel attracted to voting for marriage defense. How can you deny their freedom to their sexuality?