PDA

View Full Version : Another Stunning Victory in the War on Marriage



MEGA JESUS-SAMA
4th August 10, 06:42 PM
tl;dr the Mormon Church can blow me.


Following a lengthy public trial, Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled that the voter initiated Proposition 8, that bans gay marriage in California is unconstitutional.

Judge Walker ruled that Prop 8, as it has become known, violates the equal protection clause in the United States constitution by denying gays and lesbians the right to marry a member of the same sex. Lawyers representing supporters of Proposition 8 have already made applications for the judgement to be stayed pending appeal.

In a written judgement, Judge Walker said: "the state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose."

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," he added

"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

The case was brought by two gay couples who argued that their constitutional rights were violated by Prop 8, which was voted in by residents of California following an earlier court ruling that legalised gay marriage within the state.

During case testimony, the court heard experts testify that allowing gay marriage would help the mental health of gays and lesbians, give more legal protection to their children, reduce discrimination and give gay couples more political power.

Prop 8 supporters argued that retaining the ban would protect children and traditional marriage. They put forward only two witnesses, one of who argued that gays are 12 times more likely to molest children. Unusually, given that the legislation is upheld by the State of California, the original 'defendants', California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger, refused to support Proposition 8 in court. Schwarzenegger campaigned heavily against the introduction of Proposition 8.

In concluding, Judge Walker re-instated gay marriage in California. He wrote that the "plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8."

He added: "California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same- sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings. Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgement permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8."

However, on Tuesday, a day prior to the publication of the judgement, lawyers for the Prop 8 supporters filed papers seeking a stay that would prohibit gay marriage while the decision is appealed. Judge Walker has ruled that arguments for and against staying the judgement must be filed before 6th August 2010, when he will make a decision whether to make a temporary or semi-permanent stay on the decision. Law Professor Douglas NeJaime says it's unlikely that a the judge will make an order to permanently stay the decision, "the tone of this [the judgement] is it doesn't look like he would be issuing a stay," Professor NeJaime writes.

Democrat Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, the co-chair of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus said: "We live in a democracy wherein majority rule is checked and balanced by the guarantee of inalienable minority rights. This case, as it wends its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, presents jurists with fundamental questions about minority rights and majority rule. I believe Judge Walker got it right, declaring that denial of marriage rights and protections to gay and lesbian citizens violates the Constitution even if it reflects the will of the majority of Californians."

In 2009, following a trip to the United States, the then prime minister, Gordon Brown told gay rights campaigners: "This Proposition 8 in California, this attempt to undo good that has been done, this attempt to create divorces for 18,000 people who were perfectly legally brought together in partnerships.

"This is unacceptable and this shows why we have always got to be vigilant, always got to fight homophobic behaviour and any form of discrimination."

Amnesty International welcomed the decision saying: "The U.S. District Court has sent a clear message on Proposition 8: discrimination by any means is unacceptable. This affirms not only equality in civil marriage, but the basic human right to be treated equally under the law, without regard to an individual's sexual orientation.

"Proposition 8 served only to stigmatize same-sex relationships in ways that can fuel further discrimination. Denying equal civil recognition of same-sex relationships compounds the effects of discrimination and undermines other rights, such as the right to housing or social security. Amnesty International welcomes today's ruling as an affirmation of equality under the law."

The president of the right-wing Family Research Council was dismayed by the judgement: " It's time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box.

"Marriage is recognized as a public institution, rather than a purely private one, because of its role in bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union. The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a 'marriage' is.

"Marriage as the union between one man and one woman has been the universally-recognized understanding of marriage not only since America's founding but for millennia. To hold that the Founders created a constitutional right that none of them could even have conceived of is, quite simply, wrong."

Gay & Lesbian Center [sic] chief executive Lorri Jean welcomed the ruling: "Today’s historic decision by the federal district court is clearly a milestone victory for all gay, lesbian and bisexual Californians, our families and our friends. But much more than that, it is a resounding affirmation of fundamental American ideals and core principles of the US Constitution.

"Almost from our very beginnings, one of the exceptional hallmarks of our nation’s progress has been the expansion of our concepts of liberty and justice to include those of us who were not initially considered fully equal, or who were perhaps not even considered at all.

"Although it has often taken years of struggle, we have seen profound advancements in the recognition of the full citizenship of women, of African-Americans, and of countless other ethnic, religious and social minorities.

"These changes have come about through a continually broadening public understanding of who we all are, and of the common bonds and aspirations that we all share."

She added: "As welcome and significant as today’s ruling truly is, it is in no way a final victory…not in the current court case, and certainly not in the ultimate fight for the fully equal treatment of all LGBT Americans. There are more legal challenges, debates and votes to come. Therefore, it is as important as ever that all who support our ultimate goal of full equality continue, through every available avenue and at every opportunity, to persuade those who may not yet be with us.

"Over the last 40 years, the advances in the movement for LGBT equality have been extraordinary, but that progress has not been unbroken and there are clearly more obstacles to overcome. But today’s decision is yet another signpost as we move ever closer to the day when the ideal of liberty and justice for all is fully realized for LGBT Americans, as it should be for every American, and indeed for everyone everywhere.”

Around 18,000 gay couples married in the state in the few months in which gay marriage was legal. They were permitted to remain married after the ban passed.

Prop 8, which was the most expensive social issue campaign in US history, passed with 52 per cent of the vote.

It is expected that the supporters of Prop 8 will fight the case all the way to the US Supreme Court.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/08/04/breaking-prop-8-ban-on-gay-marriages-in-california-ruled-unconstitutional/

I'm going to go get married and divorced a couple dozen times just to spite everyone that voted for this shit.

fes_fsa
4th August 10, 06:46 PM
yeah. i was expecting something like this after Boston ruled the DOMA unconstitutional a couple weeks ago. marriage is gonna spread like wild fire. it's a beautiful thing. and it's happening in my life time.

EuropIan
4th August 10, 06:48 PM
You should marry illegal immigrants for money

fes_fsa
4th August 10, 06:49 PM
are you proposing, Ian?

EuropIan
4th August 10, 06:50 PM
I have citizenship

fes_fsa
4th August 10, 06:50 PM
you married a gay?

Spade: The Real Snake
4th August 10, 06:51 PM
Arnold seems down with the party for you, MJS

Ajamil
4th August 10, 06:55 PM
It's time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box.Yeah! How dare they expect the judicial branch to determine the constitutionality of laws and do their job!

It is expected that the supporters of Prop 8 will fight the case all the way to the US Supreme Court. I sincerely hope so. I can't see this shit ever passing the Supreme Court.

EuropIan
4th August 10, 07:00 PM
you married a gay?
you keep forgetting I was: 7oVzHm_S0-A

fes_fsa
4th August 10, 07:01 PM
but EuropIan is so much sexier than regular Ian.

Kiko
4th August 10, 07:03 PM
but EuropIan is so much sexier than regular Ian.

that's cos buttseks!!

EuropIan
4th August 10, 07:05 PM
but EuropIan is so much sexier than regular Ian.
baby, I can be both.

Cullion
4th August 10, 07:34 PM
hang on, did you want to marry somebody MJS? or is this outrage because you just feel excluded in principle ?

EuropIan
4th August 10, 07:35 PM
I think he sees a new way to get money and latin tail.

fes_fsa
4th August 10, 07:38 PM
hang on, did you want to marry somebody MJS? or is this outrage because you just feel excluded in principle ?

he and i want to marry each other... but it sorta goes against our fight for gay rights.

maybe once he's post-op, we can have a gay marriage.

Cullion
4th August 10, 07:43 PM
I think you should marry me and then we could adopt MJS.

fes_fsa
4th August 10, 07:53 PM
but you're not gay.

try to stay on topic.

Cullion
4th August 10, 07:55 PM
I need a convincing beard. People are starting to call me out as a fag in thread after thread.

Ajamil
4th August 10, 08:09 PM
7oVzHm_S0-A

The fact that Born in the USA can't be played in the USA because it belongs to a Japanese company is very funny. Do you think the people at YouTube laughed? I hope they laughed.

fes_fsa
4th August 10, 08:13 PM
I need a convincing beard. People are starting to call me out as a fag in thread after thread.

you can get one by giving a proper moustache ride.

not to me, though. that wouldn't be gay enough.

Cullion
4th August 10, 08:22 PM
How about if you stay as the mom, and I get to be the really bad uncle?

DAYoung could be your husband.

fes_fsa
4th August 10, 08:25 PM
i couldn't marry dayoung.

he would frustrate me with his constant philosophizing.

plus our marriage wouldn't be gay enough.

Cullion
4th August 10, 08:26 PM
how about you and i have a straight marriage, and then you just cheat on me when you need a walk on the wild side ?

fes_fsa
4th August 10, 08:28 PM
alright. but only if you promise to draw hanged Angels and post our text messages once Anders has RULED YOUR WORLD.

HappyOldGuy
4th August 10, 08:35 PM
I'm kinda torn.

Obviously I 100% support gay marraige. And having read the (extremely thorough) decision, I even think that the judges opinion is legally well founded.

But this is going to get overturned. It would take at least two deaths on the supreme court, including the chief justice, for it not to. And I dunno, it just feels like it is setting up false expectations.

WarPhalange
4th August 10, 08:45 PM
But this is going to get overturned. It would take at least two deaths on the supreme court, including the chief justice, for it not to.

You'd better get crackin', then.

Ajamil
4th August 10, 08:57 PM
Why do you think the SC will overturn it?

fes_fsa
4th August 10, 09:06 PM
Why do you think the SC will overturn it?

the most common argument is equal protection--if they allow gay marriage, they'd have to allow polygamy, beastiality, and pedophilia.

*rolls eyes*

bob
4th August 10, 09:11 PM
Maybe the mormons should be forming an alliance of convenience with the gays instead of fighting them. "Ok, you fags can marry each other if we're allowed to marry all the spare females."

Cullion
4th August 10, 09:16 PM
alright. but only if you promise to draw hanged Angels and post our text messages once Anders has RULED YOUR WORLD.

Nothing lasts forever, babe. We both know that.

nihilist
4th August 10, 11:57 PM
HOG, on what basis do you see the SC upholding the constitutionality of prop. 8?

HappyOldGuy
5th August 10, 12:46 AM
HOG, on what basis do you see the SC upholding the constitutionality of prop. 8?
There are lots of ways to thread that needle if you want to, you can either assume that marriage is fundamentally between a man and a woman, in which case equal protection doesn't apply, or you assume it is between two people in which case it does. I think that the ruling today (read it, it's worth it) did as good a job as is humanly possible to close off as many arguments as possible, but at the end of the day it comes down to personalities, process and politics.

If the ruling is upheld by the 9th circuit (50/50) then Roberts can kill it by refusing to review it, and he would. If it isn't then it goes to the SC.

Roberts, Scalia, Alioto, and Thomas will vote for repeal. No chance of surprises,
Kagan (assuming confirmation), Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer will vote in support. Tiny chance one might jump the fence, but I wouldn't think so.
So it comes down to Kennedy. Gay rights is one area where Kennedy often votes liberal, he was the swing vote on Lawrence v Texas and wrote the opinion overturning texas sodomy law. However he voted against the "gay" side in both the boy scouts and law school cases. I know alot of people who think he will vote against prop 8, but I think he is not the kind of justice who is going to vote against something that was passed both by the voters of california and the US congress that also overturns all previous historical precedent. He's just not that kind of an activist.

I could be wrong, and would be happy to be. But I'm not.

jvjim
5th August 10, 02:38 AM
^has the correct.

Ajamil
5th August 10, 06:44 AM
There are lots of ways to thread that needle if you want to, you can either assume that marriage is fundamentally between a man and a woman, in which case equal protection doesn't apply, or you assume it is between two people in which case it does.The fundamental argument goes against history. Wikipedia has a small article on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions), but I hardly think it's exhaustive (and I think the pederasty parallel is weak).


However he voted against the "gay" side in both the boy scouts and law school cases.Wasn't the boy scouts thing about the prerogatives of a private organization? I am really saddened by the idea of a Justice deciding in favor or not due to the "gay" part. Do you have a link to the law school cases?


I know alot of people who think he will vote against prop 8, but I think he is not the kind of justice who is going to vote against something that was passed both by the voters of california and the US congress that also overturns all previous historical precedent. What did Congress pass?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
5th August 10, 10:14 AM
Judge walker ruled that homos should have exactly the same rights to marry as heterosexual couples. If everything is legally the same then that our normal marriages are now legally homosexual! That’s right – Judge Walker is trying to make us ALL GAY!

http://shelleytherepublican.com/

lol

it's a troll though, i mean read this
http://shelleytherepublican.com/category/education/technical/linux

fes_fsa
5th August 10, 10:28 AM
lol on the 2nd post down.




OKAY, SO I THINK YOU SHOULD BE MURDERED BY A DOG, AND THEN EATEN BY CANNIBALS, CAUSE BITCH, YOUR CRAZY.
PSYCHOTIC.
AND I AM A GAY, BLACK, GERMAN, DRUG ADDICTED, DEMOCRAT, FEMINIST, HARRY POTTER LOVINN’, PETA, GOTHIC, ABORTIONISTS.
I AM EVERYTHING YOU HATE.
YOU DON’T EVEN LOOK AT THINGS FROM OTHER PEOPLES VIEWS.
HAVE YOU EVER STOPPED TO THINK ABOUT OTHER PEOPLES VIEWS?
WHAT IF SOMEONE WAS RAPED BY THEIR DAD OR SOME HORRIBLE PERSON AND GOT PREGNANT?
WOULD YOU STILL HAVE THEIR BABY?
I WOULDN’T.
PETA?
THEY KEEP PEOPLE FROM KILLING ANIMALS FOR THE WRONG REASONS.
WHICH IS WHAT GOD SAYS TO DO.
EVER THOUGHT ABOUT THAT????????
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING A FEMINIST.
IT’S NOT LIKE THEY WANT ALL GUYS TO DIE.
THEY WANT WOMAN TO HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS.
IF IT WASN’T FOR THEM, YOU WOULDN’T HAVE THAT STUPID BLOG OF YOURS.
HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT THAT MAYBE YOUR HURTING PEOPLES FEELINGS WHEN YOU WRITE THAT SHIT?
YOUR SO STUPID.
YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABORTED.
IN FACT, I HOPE YOUR MURDERED BY BLACK MASTURBATING HARRY POTTER READING OBAMA LOVERS.
CRAZY BITCH.
I HOPE YOUR WEBSITE SHUTS DOWN.
PSYCHOTIC.
THAT SHIT YOU ‘PREACH’ ABOUT ISN’T HELPING ANYONE, YOUR WEBSITE IS STUPID.
STUPID.
STUPID.
STUPID.
GO AND DIEEEE.
DUMB BITCH.
UGLY CUNT ASS BITCH MOTHER FUCKER.

Kiko
5th August 10, 10:33 AM
Capslock adds to eloquence, don'cha think?

nihilist
5th August 10, 10:35 AM
If by eloquence you mean frustrated spazocity.

Spade: The Real Snake
5th August 10, 11:06 AM
there is no space in the word "motherfucker"

nihilist
5th August 10, 11:12 AM
SHE MEANT IT THAT WAY YOU COCK FUCK DOG SHIT ASS

fes_fsa
5th August 10, 11:12 AM
the space is to add emphasis.

EMPHASIS!!!!

Spade: The Real Snake
5th August 10, 11:43 AM
the space is to add emphasis.

EMPHASIS!!!!
FUCKYOU MOTHER FUCKER

Ajamil
5th August 10, 02:51 PM
The poster is a feminist. Obviously "mother" was meant as an insult.

HappyOldGuy
5th August 10, 08:49 PM
^has the correct.

I'm actually gonna hedge my bet a bit. I've gone back and read Kennedys other relevant opinions, and the way this one has been cast is straight down the middle on how he ruled on the prior cases. I still think he is more likely to find some way to vote against it, but the judge in the case pretty much made it impossible for him to vote against it without going against his own prior writing. And that might just work.

TheMightyMcClaw
6th August 10, 12:18 AM
Hypothetical scenario:
A man and a woman are married in a state that does not allow same-sex marriage. At some point during their marriage, one of them undergoes gender reassignment surgery.
What happens? Is there marriage then anulled due to too many/not enough vaginas?

nihilist
6th August 10, 12:24 AM
It's going to take a couple of hermaphrodites to clear everything up.

Ajamil
6th August 10, 04:47 AM
People need to realize that slippery slopes work both ways. If we ban gay marriage, then they might very well ban straight marriage next!*






*I don't have time to bother looking up the SMBC comic.

Shotgun Christening
6th August 10, 05:07 AM
protect children and traditional marriage.

Protect the children? LOL, I have a gay friend that my children see on a regular basis. I dont worry about him molesting them nor has it seemed to impact their psyche in any way.



They put forward only two witnesses, one of who argued that gays are 12 times more likely to molest children.

Straight guys dont molest their daughters do they? High school female teachers dont have sex with their students do they?
BTW, a person who talks on the phone while driving is 5 times more likely to have an accident. I guess we ban cell phones next then. I drive with my children in the car so it would be for their protection.

Maybe they should use logic when they debate.



bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race

I dont know of anyone who has ever gotten pregnant out of wedlock. Never happens.



and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union.

Is divorce legal in CA? So once Im married, thats it? Im stuck with the bitch till she dies?
What happens if we dont have kids, does that mean my marriage license is invalid?
What if we adopt? That child wasnt produced by our union....oh I see, no one is ever adopted because their are no orphans because you cant get preggies out of wedlock......nevermind.

SifuAbel
6th August 10, 09:29 AM
the most common argument is equal protection--if they allow gay marriage, they'd have to allow polygamy, beastiality, and pedophilia.

*rolls eyes*Not really. The SC would be in session to review the issue BASED on the judges decision. The judge DEFINED marriage as a union of equals.
Due to gender not playing the same roles in our society as before.

A union of equals precludes marriage to children, animals, ipods, or whatever.

Polygamy laws are based on religious bias and should be overturned.(Mormons unite!, LOL) As long as its a cohesive family unit where every one involved is consenting to the situation. Having another family stashed elsewhere is not the same thing.

nihilist
6th August 10, 10:43 AM
People need to realize that slippery slopes work both ways. If we ban gay marriage, then they might very well ban straight marriage next!*






Not only that, the'll start outlawing things like pedonecrobestialiosis.

SifuAbel
6th August 10, 10:49 AM
OH COME ON!!! Everybody knows sex with freshly killed veal is awesome!!! Everybody!!

nihilist
6th August 10, 10:55 AM
Well NOB does, anyway.

Ajamil
6th August 10, 07:23 PM
Ugh. Oven baked heat just isn't the same as living. Or for the whorefeel, microwaved.

Spade: The Real Snake
9th August 10, 01:13 PM
Hypothetical scenario:
A man and a woman are married in a state that does not allow same-sex marriage. At some point during their marriage, one of them undergoes gender reassignment surgery.
What happens? Is there marriage then anulled due to too many/not enough vaginas?

There is a poster, who probably wouldn't be back, whom you could ask.

Cullion
9th August 10, 01:17 PM
Do all states in the US actually recognise gender reassignment as a legal change of gender? It wouldn't surprise me if the more religious ones didn't, therefore making the 'reassigned' partner still legally of their old gender, making the marriage 'not gay'.

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 01:25 PM
Some states would just ignore all that and go with whats on the birth certificate.

Shotgun Christening
9th August 10, 01:31 PM
Some states would just ignore all that and go with whats on the birth certificate.


Yeah, dont you have to have your BC changed when you get a sex change? Not asking you like you have had this done, just thinking out loud.

Spade: The Real Snake
9th August 10, 01:36 PM
Do all states in the US actually recognise gender reassignment as a legal change of gender? It wouldn't surprise me if the more religious ones didn't, therefore making the 'reassigned' partner still legally of their old gender, making the marriage 'not gay'.

About half allow the change on a birth certificate, two expressly prohibit it, the rest make it a legal process...this is the first step.

Second involves a case law, somewhere back east like New York or New Hampshire or some "New" something or another state, that made valid a marriage between a male and post-op female tranny.

So, I am thinking it is valid and up to the state they move TO to recognize it., which isn't a given.

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 01:44 PM
Yeah, wouldn't [ONE] have to have the BC changed when completing a sex change? Is this what you meant?

LOL

I dunno. I suppose not since his/her sex didn't change at birth. its a record of an event.

Cullion
9th August 10, 01:49 PM
You might want to remain legally of your old gender. You might even keep dressing like a man, talking like a man.

You might want the whole thing to be your beautiful secret, or an amazing birthday surprise for somebody.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
9th August 10, 01:51 PM
my first boyfriend didn't appreciate the surprise D:

nihilist
9th August 10, 03:22 PM
Read: http://news.opb.org/article/legal-loophole-allows-some-same-sex-marriages/

Cullion
9th August 10, 03:40 PM
It's a good job those anti-gay activists are keeping on top of this or those queers would be doing all kinds of unholy things to each other.

At least whilst they're unmarried all they can do is hold hands.

Shotgun Christening
9th August 10, 03:49 PM
Is this what you meant?

LOL

I dunno. I suppose not since his/her sex didn't change at birth. its a record of an event.


I guess I couldve put it like that. LOL

EuropIan
10th August 10, 12:51 PM
There's a reenactment on youtube.

It's quite interesting, mostly because it presents Judge Walker as a smart man.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
10th August 10, 04:13 PM
EJwSprkiInE

nihilist
11th August 10, 12:29 AM
Way to knock it straight out of the fucking park.

Cullion
11th August 10, 07:41 AM
Can somebody please, with a straight face, explain the argument that 'allowing same-sex marriage hurts hetero marriage'.

Just try and politely summarise it as if you were somebody who believed in it.

P.S. the 'knocking it out of the park' guy is great until about halfway through, and then he starts making shit up.

EuropIan
11th August 10, 07:50 AM
watch the reenactment, Cullion.

What they do is essentially repeat the premise all the while promising the evidence "is there".

Reenactment is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/MarriageTrial

nihilist
11th August 10, 08:22 AM
.

P.S. the 'knocking it out of the park' guy is great until about halfway through, and then he starts making shit up.
He's on FOX.
That's what you do there.

EvilSteve
11th August 10, 09:43 AM
Can somebody please, with a straight face, explain the argument that 'allowing same-sex marriage hurts hetero marriage'.

Just try and politely summarise it as if you were somebody who believed in it.

P.S. the 'knocking it out of the park' guy is great until about halfway through, and then he starts making shit up.

I don't know that I've ever heard a coherent argument to that effect. All I've heard is either the slippery slope argument (people will end up marrying animals and raping children), the "cuz God" argument or the "this isn't what society is used to, so allowing same sex marriage will tear at the fabric of society, damaging it at all levels."

It may be worth noting that most Americans have a very romanticized view of marriage- that it's about love- and don't realize that the primary purpose of marriage for most of human history was to form financial alliances between families. Perhaps that also adds to the national backlash against this.

resolve
11th August 10, 10:02 AM
Can somebody please, with a straight face, explain the argument that 'allowing same-sex marriage hurts hetero marriage'.

Just try and politely summarise it as if you were somebody who believed in it.

I don't think I can do that for that argument (because I don't specifically believe it) but I can try to explain my position.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Men and women compliment each other. It's nature. Marriage is for the mutual benefit of the man and woman as they pursue life and provides a solid base to raise children in. This is why marriage has been around for millenia unchanged; although presented in different forms. If you believe the christian worldview then marriage was the very first institution.

Now do homosexuals attempting to "marry" somehow harm or destroy the sanctity of marriage? No, I still feel that the union of a man and woman together in marriage is still perfectly intact. However, the real issue here is society wanting to change the "definition" of marriage; what marriage is. This new society is attempting to erase thousands of years of culture and history with a wave of the hand to include people they feel are being left out of an essential right: the right to marry.

Homosexuals can marry, now, just like anyone else (and no, I don't mean the states that allow same sex marriage). They always have had the ability to. A homosexual man can marry a woman and a homosexual woman can marry a man. They have had this same essential right as anyone else has for all of history. Now, I'm not saying that the marriage would be practical or that they would be happy... but the point I am bringing up is that they do have the same rights as the rest of us. What the campaign for same-sex marriage is all about is about the redefining of what marriage is.

Now, on other boards I have talked with a few gay members about this. Some who respected me, many who didn't, and some who agreed with me. This is what I've concluded: Why are homosexuals attempting so very hard to change this right and institution into something that includes their lifestyle? The reason is heterosexual couples can get married and enter into this institution that is encouraged in society and gain a slightly better standing in society. Getting married, for now, is still encouraged in society in large part due to the benefits it brings (as I mentioned above in my definition of marriage). The homosexual man or woman is still yearning for that ideal of marriage in the back of their mind. Yet, they know that they won't attain it because of their choices (or if you truly believe homosexuality is not a choice, their circumstances), at least, not in a way that is as fulfilling as a heterosexual person could have. But that drive... that intense desire to marry and enter into a lifelong monogamous relationship with the opposite sex is ingrained into the mind of a child as a social norm. And that's just the thing. Homosexuals do not feel normal. In my opinion they sense what is wrong with them. But in the homosexuals' opinion they are sensing injustice from society. They look at their partner and (sometimes) think something along the lines of "we are in a monogamous relationship, we respect and love each other, we do so many things that hetero couples do... why can't what we have be called marriage too?" And that was the tip of the glacier... the rock that starts the avalanche. Then they see that married couples get benefits from society because that way of life has always been encouraged. Then it becomes a legal matter.

I don't think marriage should include homosexual relationships simply because that is not what marriage is. It just isn't. A homosexual relationship can be even more monogamous and more endearing than an unhappy marriage... but what they have is still not marriage. When we attempt to change and distort marriage to fit a new ideal of what we believe marriage is, it quickly becomes nothing more than a shadow of real marriage and a lie.

I've been for civil unions for a while so in homosexual monogamous couples can gain the same taxation rights as a married couple... simply for fairness sake. Yet, that isn't the real crux of the issue. It's not the deepest psychological motivator for this whole debacle in the first place. Even in a civil union homosexuals will still feel "different" and not normal.

What they are trying to achieve through this entire "changing the definition of marriage" thing is that normalcy. They want to be normal and perceived as normal.

I simply don't believe that we should lie to ourselves.

Commodore Pipes
11th August 10, 10:41 AM
Resolve's position, shortened for commentary




This is a pretty good argument, meaning it is the only argument I accept as valid. Sorry, but 'cuz Jesus' doesn't have a place in our explicitely secular government. Cullion, I know you trolled us (or claimed too - I'm never sure what is a troll job and what isn't here, which is why I can't quit y'all) with that incest thread to show us what n00bs we are and how not every belief needs a logical/rational argument, but I'm afraid that 'it's a crime against beauty' is a bit too close to 'it's a sin' for my tastes.

Resolve, I think the only fair action is this:





I've been for civil unions for a while so in homosexual monogamous couples can gain the same taxation rights as a married couple... simply for fairness sake. .


I think that civil government should ONLY recognize civil unions. If marriage is a sacrament, which many religions claim it as, I don't think the government has the authority to recognize it's validity. Besides, if you believe in God, you shouldn't NEED the government to validate your sacred union. Fundamentalist Mormons don't. So i think you should get married in your church, and then instead of filling out a marriage license, you fill out a civil union contract. Nobody reads the fucking paperwork anyway.


Now do homosexuals attempting to "marry" somehow harm or destroy the sanctity of marriage? No, I still feel that the union of a man and woman together in marriage is still perfectly intact. However, the real issue here is society wanting to change the "definition" of marriage; what marriage is. This new society is attempting to erase thousands of years of culture and history with a wave of the hand to include people they feel are being left out of an essential right: the right to marry.



This, and things very close to it, are at the heart of many 'conservative' reactions against pluralism. It's not about thinking that evolution, or science, or muslims, or browns are evil, even though that is often how it is expressed. It's a profound unease that their signifying systems - the religion or the values or the morals they grew up with - are no longer considered valid, and that these competing value systems are being taught as BETTER than theirs. And, frankly, in some cases they are right. It is taught as being better. I don't know how many times I've heard that Christianity is the cause of every war we've ever had, which, unless Christianity invented mineral wealth, can not possibly be true.

In a real dialogue, these concerns would be acknowledged and careful explanations for the value and benefit of other POVs would be articulated. But of course it's easier to say "LOL god is a fag" and "you so stupid" and "fuck you, I got courts!" instead of trying to find a real common ground.

Edit: oh, yeah, a good idea of this sort of pluralist attack on 'conservative' mores is the idea of 'trangressive art.' I mean, it's right in the name: it defines itself, and finds value in subverting and destroying social standards and mores. Now, I'm not saying some good things haven't come out of art that was considered transgressive in its time (invisible man, anyone?), but most of it is essentially children throwing tantrums. We need to be more discerning about what has real value and what is just a crucifix in a jar of urine.

TheMightyMcClaw
11th August 10, 10:42 AM
Can somebody please, with a straight face, explain the argument that 'allowing same-sex marriage hurts hetero marriage'.

Just try and politely summarise it as if you were somebody who believed in it.

P.S. the 'knocking it out of the park' guy is great until about halfway through, and then he starts making shit up.

Because if men realized they could just marry each other instead of having to put up with women, it'd be the end of heterosexuality.

EvilSteve
11th August 10, 11:12 AM
that intense desire to marry and enter into a lifelong monogamous relationship with the opposite sex is ingrained into the mind of a child as a social norm. And that's just the thing. Homosexuals do not feel normal. In my opinion they sense what is wrong with them.

...the...FUCK? I think most gay folks feel pretty normal about themselves and their sexuality when they aren't being beaten up or put down because of it.


But in the homosexuals' opinion they are sensing injustice from society.

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner! Gonna have to go with the gays on this one.

You know, you're a pretty nice guy, so I hate to say this, but the way you just calmly dismissed as innately wrong a group of people who are harming no one and really only trying to gain the same acceptance as the rest of us is more than a little disturbing.

I know that's not what you meant, but take it from me, gay folks, like the rest of us feel perfectly fine about themselves until someone tells them they shouldn't.

Cullion
11th August 10, 11:27 AM
This is a pretty good argument, meaning it is the only argument I accept as valid. Sorry, but 'cuz Jesus' doesn't have a place in our explicitely secular government. Cullion, I know you trolled us (or claimed too - I'm never sure what is a troll job and what isn't here, which is why I can't quit y'all) with that incest thread to show us what n00bs we are and how not every belief needs a logical/rational argument, but I'm afraid that 'it's a crime against beauty' is a bit too close to 'it's a sin' for my tastes.

If you don't believe it then you either have to allow consenting adults to marry their own grandmothers or come up with another rationale. You will have to come up with similar rationales to prevent people marrying their beloved pets too.



I think that civil government should ONLY recognize civil unions. If marriage is a sacrament, which many religions claim it as, I don't think the government has the authority to recognize it's validity. Besides, if you believe in God, you shouldn't NEED the government to validate your sacred union. Fundamentalist Mormons don't. So i think you should get married in your church, and then instead of filling out a marriage license, you fill out a civil union contract. Nobody reads the fucking paperwork anyway.

This is exactly my position on the 'gay marriage' issue.

Spade: The Real Snake
11th August 10, 11:37 AM
If you don't believe it then you either have to allow consenting adults to marry their own grandmothers or come up with another rationale. You will have to come up with similar rationales to prevent people marrying their beloved pets too.
The minute the verbiage is changed from the simple "one man, one woman", the amount of disclaimers and restrictive language within the law will make it confusing, clumsy and unwieldy.

Which in and of itself is the nature of law, however, the law will need to ensure minimal loopholes.




This is exactly my position on the 'gay marriage' issue.
Now the next step, getting other states to recognize this civil union contract. As it stands, states will recognize other state's marriage covenants as if they were their own, because they are essentially all the same.

Some states will not recognize lengthy cohabitation, generally called "Common Law Marriage" unless a higher government agency has recognized them first or they have been recorded in court records (such as some manner of trial where one testifies for the other and is recorded as "common law wife").

Commodore Pipes
11th August 10, 11:50 AM
If you don't believe it then you either have to allow consenting adults to marry their own grandmothers or come up with another rationale. You will have to come up with similar rationales to prevent people marrying their beloved pets too.


I am all for coming up with another rationale. I haven't yet, because I'm a slow thinker. I just worry about laws based on 'cuz it's wrong,' without any explicit argument of why. If a law is wrong one should be able to articulate in a secular sense why it is wrong.

Pets are easy, though. There's no way to confirm consent by the pet.

EvilSteve
11th August 10, 11:54 AM
Edit: oh, yeah, a good idea of this sort of pluralist attack on 'conservative' mores is the idea of 'trangressive art.' I mean, it's right in the name: it defines itself, and finds value in subverting and destroying social standards and mores. Now, I'm not saying some good things haven't come out of art that was considered transgressive in its time (invisible man, anyone?), but most of it is essentially children throwing tantrums. We need to be more discerning about what has real value and what is just a crucifix in a jar of urine.

I thought the point of Piss Christ was that modern Christianity had defiled itself? Other than that, I found it to be pretty inoffensive. To me, that was its worst crime. Then again, nothing short of Mark Rothko offends me.

Commodore Pipes
11th August 10, 12:03 PM
I thought the point of Piss Christ was that modern Christianity had defiled itself? Other than that, I found it to be pretty inoffensive. To me, that was its worst crime. Then again, nothing short of Mark Rothko offends me.

I'm trying to think of a response that doesn't insult the people I mean to include in the dialogue.

Okay, here: that might be Sister Wendy's take, but I'm not really talking about people like her - people who already recongize the value of participating in differnet/unconventional signifying systems. Serrano intended to cause controversy; maybe he did it to get his point across, but even then he is still only aiming toward people already a part of the conversation.

EDIT: Yeah, Piss Christ was probably a poor example. Substitute that with GG Allin.

nihilist
11th August 10, 12:07 PM
If you don't believe it then you either have to allow consenting adults to marry their own grandmothers or come up with another rationale.

I'm OK with you marrying your grandmum as long as you don't create any genetically faulty spawn. I do not abide child abuse.



This is exactly my position on the 'gay marriage' issue.
Again, Why should homosexuals be denied the same sacraments as heterosexuals?

Commodore Pipes
11th August 10, 12:10 PM
Again, Why should homosexuals be denied the same sacraments as heterosexuals?

I'm perfectly content to leave that up to whatever religion it is. I think everyone deserve equal protection under the law, but if I am unwilling to give religions the authority to dictate civil contracts, I am equally unwilling to allow civil authority to dictate particulars of the church. PEDO exception: except where they violate existing laws, etc etc.

Cullion
11th August 10, 12:11 PM
Sacraments? or legal rights?

If we're talking about the latter, then there is absolutely no reason why a same-sex spouse should be denied the same legal rights. Civil partnership is a tax, pension, inheritance and insurance issue, it's not the government's place to decide who you bequeath that special status too in a country with no state religion. It's just fine to call this civic legal arrangement 'marriage', you have every right to do that.

If you actually meant 'religious sacrament', well it's because a particular religion may not condone homosexuality, and a homosexual has no inherent right to force an adherent of that religion to perform a wedding service for them.

Spade: The Real Snake
11th August 10, 12:12 PM
I'm OK with you marrying your grandmum as long as you don't create any genetically faulty spawn. I do not abide child abuse.
and this manner of statement is partially the type of unwieldy verbiage which a law would need to include and would place restrictions upon the institution.




Again, Why should homosexuals be denied the same sacraments as heterosexuals?
Sacraments meaning wine and crackers?

Commodore Pipes
11th August 10, 12:14 PM
I just want to say this thread has been filled with both good discussion and mucho lulz.

Cullion
11th August 10, 12:16 PM
I'm OK with you marrying your grandmum as long as you don't create any genetically faulty spawn.

Would you support a law enforcing the sterilisation of people with congenital disabilities ?

Spade: The Real Snake
11th August 10, 12:17 PM
Would you support a law enforcing the sterilisation of people with congenital disabilities ?
you were just waiting for that, weren't you?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
11th August 10, 12:46 PM
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Men and women compliment each other. It's nature. Marriage is for the mutual benefit of the man and woman as they pursue life and provides a solid base to raise children in. This is why marriage has been around for millenia unchanged; although presented in different forms. If you believe the christian worldview then marriage was the very first institution.

Now do homosexuals attempting to "marry" somehow harm or destroy the sanctity of marriage? No, I still feel that the union of a man and woman together in marriage is still perfectly intact. However, the real issue here is society wanting to change the "definition" of marriage; what marriage is. This new society is attempting to erase thousands of years of culture and history with a wave of the hand to include people they feel are being left out of an essential right: the right to marry.

Same-sex unions has existed since antiquity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions


Yet, they know that they won't attain it because of their choices (or if you truly believe homosexuality is not a choice, their circumstances), at least, not in a way that is as fulfilling as a heterosexual person could have.

Why are homosexual relationships necessarily less fulfilling than heterosexual relationships?


I've been for civil unions for a while so in homosexual monogamous couples can gain the same taxation rights as a married couple... simply for fairness sake. Yet, that isn't the real crux of the issue. It's not the deepest psychological motivator for this whole debacle in the first place. Even in a civil union homosexuals will still feel "different" and not normal.

Civil unions are not equivalent to marriage. Even if they were, it still wouldn't be fair to call homosexual unions something separate from heterosexual unions. That relegates us to second-class citizenship.


What they are trying to achieve through this entire "changing the definition of marriage" thing is that normalcy. They want to be normal and perceived as normal.

I simply don't believe that we should lie to ourselves.

Do you understand how homosexuality works? Why aren't they normal?

nihilist
11th August 10, 09:36 PM
I'm perfectly content to leave that up to whatever religion it is. I think everyone deserve equal protection under the law, but if I am unwilling to give religions the authority to dictate civil contracts, I am equally unwilling to allow civil authority to dictate particulars of the church. PEDO exception: except where they violate existing laws, etc etc. "leave it up to whatever religion"? different churches have differing views on what a supposed God supposedly allows. Why should only certain churches have the right to legislate a covenant with a supposed creator?

SifuAbel
11th August 10, 09:38 PM
The SC is in a bit of a pickle. Because they have to now entertain the judge's clever use of the term "union of equals". It could be construed that if the SC retracts the term from the precedent they are then stating that gay people are not equals to the rest of society. It could also come to be construed as inequality between men and women.

nihilist
11th August 10, 09:41 PM
Would you support a law enforcing the sterilisation of people with congenital disabilities ?

I would support a law enforcing the chemical sterilization of everybody.
Only by proving that one is able to afford a child would they be permitted to start spitting out crotch spawn.

Commodore Pipes
11th August 10, 09:59 PM
"leave it up to whatever religion"? different churches have differing views on what a supposed God supposedly allows. Why should only certain churches have the right to legislate a covenant with a supposed creator?

That's why it is up to each individual religion.

nihilist
11th August 10, 10:45 PM
That's why it is up to each individual religion. To make up a special meaningless piece of paper in addition to civil unions?
Marriage is a legal contract. Invididual churches have no business dictating who should or should not be allowed to enter into private legal contracts.
If they want to give out special "ordained by Teh Almighty" badges then fine, otherwise they need to fuck off.

nihilist
11th August 10, 10:47 PM
Would you support a law enforcing the sterilisation of people with congenital disabilities ?
Would you support a law enforcing the right of two people with AIDS to have AIDS infected babies??

Commodore Pipes
11th August 10, 11:20 PM
To make up a special meaningless piece of paper in addition to civil unions?
Marriage is a legal contract. Invididual churches have no business dictating who should or should not be allowed to enter into private legal contracts.
If they want to give out special "ordained by Teh Almighty" badges then fine, otherwise they need to fuck off.

Dude, that's my point. I am saying 'Marriage' should become a sacrament with no legal standing whatsoever. We'll call what we used to call 'legal marriage' a "civil union". That way homosexuals can get equal benefits and religion can keep the word.

HappyOldGuy
11th August 10, 11:25 PM
Would you support a law enforcing the right of two people with AIDS to have AIDS infected babies??

People with AIDS can only have AIDS infected babies if they refuse to get proper medical treament.

Grandma and junior are slightly more likely to have mutant babies. But grandma having one glass of wine early in the pregnancy is an even bigger risk factor.

nihilist
11th August 10, 11:45 PM
I care more about the welfare and health of the new human than the rights of a crackhead/drunk/indigent retard to procreate.

Harpy
11th August 10, 11:47 PM
Not sure about the de facto laws in the US.

Here in Australia the law states that for de facto couples (who have been together for at least 2 years) that the Family Court can order division of property etc.

The kicker is that a relationship is defined as one 'between two peopel who are not married or related by family (no incest) and living together in a domestic arrangement. It can exist between 2 people of the opposite sex or between 2 people of the same sex.'

I never realised that. So our government is quite happy to not recognise the legal union of a same sex couple but recognises the right of homosexual non-married couples when it comes to child custody and division of property. All of this going through the 'FAMILY' courts. What a joke.

Cullion
12th August 10, 07:40 AM
"leave it up to whatever religion"? different churches have differing views on what a supposed God supposedly allows. Why should only certain churches have the right to legislate a covenant with a supposed creator?

Because the covenant with the creator should be something entirely seperate from a legal standing.

If you passed a law forcing the clergyman to marry anybody who asked, regardless of his religion's position on their choice, you'd be infringing his rights.

Why would somebody insist on the right to a ceremony from a religion that condemned their beliefs and lifestyle anyway ?

Surely what they're really trying to say in that case is 'I disagree with your religious beliefs because they are critical of me, and I want to use the law to smash them'.

That makes a person as bad as any Christian fundamentalist who doesn't understand why church and state need to be seperated.

Cullion
12th August 10, 07:43 AM
I care more about the welfare and health of the new human than the rights of a crackhead/drunk/indigent retard to procreate.

No you don't. It's just that you've realised that your humanistic defence of same-sex marriage is logically indistinguishable from consensual adult incest and it makes you feel funny inside. Funny-excited-shocked-at-yourself-oh-god-i-don't-want-to-think-about-it inside.

oh yes you do bro.

nihilist
12th August 10, 11:04 AM
Stop projecting.

Spade: The Real Snake
12th August 10, 04:06 PM
I think all sperm should belong to the government. I They should control where it goes.

Ajamil
12th August 10, 06:45 PM
Can somebody please, with a straight face, explain the argument that 'allowing same-sex marriage hurts hetero marriage'.The best I've heard is that it is indirect. Allowing same-sex marriage puts into the public view a muddling of the family dynamic: man and woman conceive children to be raised to further society. When kids see man and man marriages, or woman and woman marriages the focus of marriage moves away from conception and child rearing to simple partnership. Marriages between a man and a woman who can't or don't have children are still alright because they keep the image and thus the underlying principle of marriage in the eyes of the children. If, however, children begin seeing same-sex marriages on an equal footing with heterosexual marriage, then the underlying principle of the institution will wither, and following generations won't have the family unit as a stable child rearing environment, and society will stray even farther from responsible raising of the next generation.


Marriage is between a man and a woman. Men and women compliment each other. It's nature. Marriage is for the mutual benefit of the man and woman as they pursue life and provides a solid base to raise children in. This is why marriage has been around for millenia unchanged; although presented in different forms. If you believe the christian worldview then marriage was the very first institution.I don't think this can be shown biologically or historically. Don't most primates (and in the past, humans too) have harems as the more common mating structure? As in a single male to several females? These units are also rather fluid, considering the propensity on both sides to "cheat."


However, the real issue here is society wanting to change the "definition" of marriage; what marriage is.

Homosexuals can marry, now, just like anyone else (and no, I don't mean the states that allow same sex marriage). They always have had the ability to. A homosexual man can marry a woman and a homosexual woman can marry a man. They have had this same essential right as anyone else has for all of history.Like a blind person has the right to go see a movie? I suppose this is true.


What the campaign for same-sex marriage is all about is about the redefining of what marriage is.Again I think you have put too much into the idea that the definition of marriage has been static.


The reason is heterosexual couples can get married and enter into this institution that is encouraged in society and gain a slightly better standing in society. Getting married, for now, is still encouraged in society in large part due to the benefits it brings (as I mentioned above in my definition of marriage).The benefits you mention are "mutual benefit" as they pursue life and "solid base to raise children in." Do you think homosexual couples should NOT have a solid base to raise their children? Do you think homosexual couples should NOT be allowed mutual benefit in their lives' pursuits?


The homosexual man or woman is still yearning for that ideal of marriage in the back of their mind.You aren't talking about the harem, are you? Because I still think I could show a majority of human and other primate cultures using harems as the norm rather than one to one pairing.

But that drive... that intense desire to marry and enter into a lifelong monogamous relationship with the opposite sex is ingrained into the mind of a child as a social norm.Would you agree the "destruction of the marriage institution" is best argued as a change in what is ingrained into children's minds as the social norm? How many years do you think it would take a Brave New World to see entering a monogamous relationship as sick and twisted?


"we are in a monogamous relationship, we respect and love each other, we do so many things that hetero couples do... why can't what we have be called marriage too?"Why was none of this used in your definition of marriage?


Then they see that married couples get benefits from society because that way of life has always been encouraged. Then it becomes a legal matter.This is where I see the problem, and later we agree - marriage is melding church and state.


I don't think marriage should include homosexual relationships simply because that is not what marriage is. It just isn't. A homosexual relationship can be even more monogamous and more endearing than an unhappy marriage... but what they have is still not marriage.Again, your definition was "mutual benefit for life's pursuits" and "stable base for raising children." I asked before if homosexual couples should be denied these things. Now I ask if a homosexual couple provides these things - are they married according to your definition? Why not? I think you have an a priori definition of marriage, which is coloring your attempt to define it so that it can contain heterosexuals but not homosexuals. When we attempt to change and distort marriage to fit a new ideal of what we believe marriage is, it quickly becomes nothing more than a shadow of real marriage and a lie.


I've been for civil unions for a while so in homosexual monogamous couples can gain the same taxation rights as a married couple... simply for fairness sake. Yet, that isn't the real crux of the issue. It's not the deepest psychological motivator for this whole debacle in the first place. Even in a civil union homosexuals will still feel "different" and not normal.They eventually will if we remove any governmental recognition of religious ceremonies bestowing marriage. You want a particular sect to recognize you as a married couple? Fine - go do that. That means you might get rejected by the sect of choice - maybe just because you're trying to have an interracial marriage, or an interreligious one. (P.S. - Gays, Unitarians have been marrying you guys and gals in churches for a long time now.) You want visitation rights and tax benefits and power of attorney? Go get a govt. contract. Seems many of us on here think this way - we should start a movement.

If you don't believe it then you either have to allow consenting adults to marry their own grandmothers or come up with another rationale.I still don't have a problem with it being legal. I have a bit of a problem with it being fucking weird, though.

Would you support a law enforcing the sterilisation of people with congenital disabilities ?Heh, and here I was thinking the "no babies" bit sounded quite a lot like Eugenics. If you wanted to go that far Libertarian, then yes - they should even be allowed to risk severely screwing up their progeny. However then I would want a stop on govt. support for such offspring, but since that would be horribly biased it would basically mean stopping any and all govt. assistance programs. So there's some middle ground that has to be reached between hands-on and hands-off approaches. Right now public opinion is that line is drawn at not letting direct blood relatives marry or have offspring.

Civil unions are not equivalent to marriage. Even if they were, it still wouldn't be fair to call homosexual unions something separate from heterosexual unions. That relegates us to second-class citizenship.Why are they not equivalent? You mean in current legal privileges? Because that's exactly what I'm advocating: knock "marriage" back to being a religious institution with no legal backing, and make civil unions the only thing the law recognizes.

To make up a special meaningless piece of paper in addition to civil unions?Yes. Because it's only "meaningless" to you. In fact, it's as meaningless as the God who supervises and consents to the marriage.

Marriage is a legal contract. Invididual churches have no business dictating who should or should not be allowed to enter into private legal contracts.
If they want to give out special "ordained by Teh Almighty" badges then fine, otherwise they need to fuck off.Which is why marriage shouldn't be a legal contract.

I care more about the welfare and health of the new human than the rights of a crackhead/drunk/indigent retard to procreate.Is only after they leave the womb, or are you leaning towards banning abortion?

lant3rn
12th August 10, 07:00 PM
http://www.frc.org/

I think this is what cullion is looking for.

They have a whole bunch of articles where they invoke "scientific" articles and make "objective" arguments against same sex marriage.

EuropIan
16th August 10, 09:26 AM
While this guy does show his bias very strongly (,ducky)

His arguments are well researched and his knowledge of law is pretty good, him being a professor and all.

bV3fkpR74Ak

fZNUo62N_mY