# Prop 8 (CA) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 5, 2008, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250 "2008-11-05T09:48:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/381 "2008-11-07T07:23:11Z")
But there is no obstacle to gay couples having children either; after all, as you yourself support, they could adopt. So why not extend such recognition to them as well? ETA: Boy, this thread moves fast. The above was in response to **magellan01** ’s last post. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/382 "2008-11-07T07:23:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Because marriage is the societal recognition of the the natural coming together of one man and one woman. A union that usually results in the production of children. Cats and Gouda cheese play no role in that. Now you’re calling it a union??? Fuck that, that term is reserved FOR GAYS. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/383 "2008-11-07T07:24:56Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Well, at least I know I was right about your lying being a delusional coping mechanism. First you claimed I was lying. Then you granted that I wasn’t. (Without apologizing.) Now you have no come back and revert to this empty accusation, which you had already retracted. That’s some powerful dumb. Really, bed would be the better bet for you at this point. But here’s something to think about, not to mention the answer to what will probably be your next moronic post: Post 356. Post 362. Sleep well. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/384 "2008-11-07T07:25:35Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Now you’re calling it a union??? Fuck that, that term is reserved FOR GAYS. Indeed; I don’t see how society could cope with such an expansion of the terminology. There will be nebulous ill-effects, I warn you… ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/385 "2008-11-07T07:27:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Because marriage is the societal recognition of the the natural coming together of one man and one woman. Magellan, please go read my post about the CA Constitutional Convention. While I won’t say your definition is arbitrary, there is nothing magical or inherent about it. It’s simply the definition you’ve decided is the one that applies to marriage. Two-hundred years ago, it was natural for women to have no property rights in marriage. There were people who thought that for a woman to have property rights would undermine the definition of marriage itself. Fifty years ago, it was natural for there to be no interracial marriages. Again, there were people who thought marriage would be undermined if interracial marriages were allowed. You’ve simply latched onto the natural definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman because that’s what you’re used to. You don’t incorporate all these other things (property rights, race) that people once thought were critical to the definition for whatever reason. That doesn’t mean your definition is any more correct than theirs were. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/386 "2008-11-07T07:31:02Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > But there is no obstacle to gay couples having children either; after all, as you yourself support, they could adopt. So why not extend such recognition to them as well? > > ETA: Boy, this thread moves fast. The above was in response to **magellan01** ’s last post. I acknowledge what I think is fact, that gays can be excellent parents. I think that the ideal situation for the raising of children involves a child being raised by a mother and a father, a female and a male. If that is in fact the case, and I believe it to be so, then society could, and should, have a term that addresses the distinction. It should build in a bias for that that situation. Man. I’m getting tired from all this typing. I’ll be heading off soon. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/387 "2008-11-07T07:32:24Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Now you’re calling it a union??? Fuck that, that term is reserved FOR GAYS. Deal. Smartest thing you said so far. Take that any way you want. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/388 "2008-11-07T07:34:46Z")
Re: homosexual couples having and raising children. They can also have heterosexual sex with a willing stranger. I hear that happens once or twice in the straight world. They can raise children from previous marriages/relationships or even rapes, as has already been mentioned (though perhaps without the unpleasant rape part). They can call up an ex of the opposite sex for a roll in the hay for procreation’s sake. Maybe bring everyone’s current partners along. They can find a same-sex couple of the opposite sex and swap partners + a couple of bottles of tequila, and get a 2-for-1. They can get eggs/sperm donated from eachother’s siblings, or friends, or exes, or complete strangers. Wait a few years and parthenogenesis and androgenesis will probably be possible. I could go on… ---
**Author:** ![HoboStew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@HoboStew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoboStew)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/389 "2008-11-07T07:36:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Man. I’m getting tired from all this typing. I’ll be heading off soon. I’d appreciate a response to #379 before you shove off. I’m genuinely curious, not baiting. It’s short! ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/390 "2008-11-07T07:40:46Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Magellan, please go read my post about the CA Constitutional Convention. While I won’t say your definition is arbitrary, there is nothing magical or inherent about it. It’s simply the definition you’ve decided is the one that applies to marriage. > > Two-hundred years ago, it was natural for women to have no property rights in marriage. There were people who thought that for a woman to have property rights would undermine the definition of marriage itself. > > Fifty years ago, it was natural for there to be no interracial marriages. Again, there were people who thought marriage would be undermined if interracial marriages were allowed. > > You’ve simply latched onto the natural definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman because that’s what you’re used to. You don’t incorporate all these other things (property rights, race) that people once thought were critical to the definition for whatever reason. That doesn’t mean your definition is any more correct than theirs were. I found your cite quite insulting. I know why you offered it, but the argument is not a new one. I will say that I’ve stripped the concept of marriage down to its essence. There is biology, which hasn’t changed, and history, which is the reality of what has happened to date and gives us the definition we have (for most people). Those things are part of the fabric of our society. The institution, thusly understood, has served us well and am loathe to change it. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/391 "2008-11-07T07:45:36Z")
> [@HoboStew](#): > > OK so what’s so special about the 1 man 1 woman equation? Keep in mind that as of 2003, 43.7% of custodial mothers and 56.2% of custodial fathers were either separated or divorced ([cite](http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml))? I’m not sure if you’re asking more about the numbers (one of each) or the sexes (different). actually, I’m confused as to what you’re looking for, period. can you please clarify your question? ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/392 "2008-11-07T07:52:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > There is biology, which hasn’t changed… . This statement does not compute, but even considering that the human species has only been around for the biological blink of an eye, _Applied Biology_ has changed. A lot. I was genetically engineering bacteria and extracting/imaging DNA at a community college at the age of 16 in 1992. Who the hell knows what they’re doing in the comparable classes today. > [@](#): > > …and history, which is the reality of what has happened to date As written by a few. > [@](#): > > … and gives us the definition we have (for most people). See “few” above. ---
**Author:** ![HoboStew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@HoboStew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoboStew)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/393 "2008-11-07T07:58:41Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m confused as to what you’re looking for, period. can you please clarify your question? You said: [QUOTE=magellan01] Because marriage is the societal recognition of the the natural coming together of one man and one woman. A union that usually results in the production of children. [/QUOTE] To which I responded: [QUOTE=HoboStew] OK so what’s so special about the 1 man 1 woman equation? [/QUOTE] with a relevant cite. So I will ask again, what is so special about the 1 man 1 woman equation? Like it or not, marriage is hardly a holy unbreakable bond this day and age, so why forbid it to 2 consenting adults who are in love? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/394 "2008-11-07T08:01:08Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > . > > This statement does not compute, but even considering that the human species has only been around for the biological blink of an eye, _Applied Biology_ has changed. A lot. I was genetically engineering bacteria and extracting/imaging DNA at a community college at the age of 16 in 1992. Who the hell knows what they’re doing in the comparable classes today. What I meant is that it takes a man and a woman to create a baby. > [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > As written by a few. So. Do you deny that in our history that marriage has been the provence of a man and a woman? And now I think I’m off to bed. Good night. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/395 "2008-11-07T08:05:57Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Not sure I’m following you. But “encouraging” an ideal needn’t mean taking draconian measure to ensure 100% compliance. Excluded middle and all that. I think she’s saying that if you’re going to deny marriage to gays in order to promote your ideal child rearing unit, what are going to deny divorcees and widowers to promote it? Or is that just different ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/396 "2008-11-07T08:06:55Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So. Do you deny that in our history that marriage has been the provence of a man and a woman? > > And now I think I’m off to bed. Good night. Exclusively? And only in that configuration? Yes. But my point was only that history is not perfect, and it has a tendancy to under-report things. So I tend to take it with a grain of salt. The Pirate code, is really more of a guideline… ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/397 "2008-11-07T08:08:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So. Do you deny that in our history that marriage has been the provence of a man and a woman? That’s bullshit, and you know it. “In our history” means women as chattel. If you want something meaningful think “family” and “village.” Gays have always been an inseparable part of that and we continue to create our own families today. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/398 "2008-11-07T08:09:54Z")
> [@outlierrn](#): > > I think she’s saying that if you’re going to deny marriage to gays in order to promote your ideal child rearing unit, what are going to deny divorcees and widowers to promote it? Or is that just different I meant to come back to this, but got distracted. That is the gist of what I was getting at. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/399 "2008-11-07T08:10:55Z")
> [@HoboStew](#): > > You said: > To which I responded: with a relevant cite. So I will ask again, what is so special about the 1 man 1 woman equation? Like it or not, marriage is hardly a holy unbreakable bond this day and age, so why forbid it to 2 consenting adults who are in love? Because, as I’ve stated, I think that a man-woman marriage provides the best environment for children. While SS couples can provide loving environments, as well, i think it behooves society to encourage the ideal. i forget all the specifics of what I’ve read, but children get different things from a male and a female parent. A single mom I know, a very good friend, liked to have me come over to be around her son and play with him because she saw that he had gotten things from his dad, who was no longer around, that she just couldn’t give him. I hope that answers your question, HoboStew. If not, I’ll try to do better tomorrow. But for now, I must sign off. Good night. And thank you, and others, for the civil discussion on a sensitive issue. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/400 "2008-11-07T08:17:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I found your cite quite insulting. I know why you offered it, but the argument is not a new one. I will say that I’ve stripped the concept of marriage down to its essence. There is biology, which hasn’t changed, and history, which is the reality of what has happened to date and gives us the definition we have (for most people). Those things are part of the fabric of our society. The institution, thusly understood, has served us well and am loathe to change it. Then marriage should only apply to biologically created families? everything else can and was argued against interacial marraiges and property rights for women and some were loath to change those, but they were wrong [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250.md?page=21)