Ohio Senate Approves Gay-Marriage Ban

[Ben Kenobi]

They want to marry them, so let them go ahead and do so.

That's not an effective argument against Ohio. Why such vitriol against their decision to affirm marriage? Same with the constitutional amendment in the States. If people want the prohibition, why stop them?

The problem I have in Canada is that the people have not had their say on the issue, but rather have had the terms dictated to them by an unelected judiciary.

G'night Napoleon.

[Ben Kenobi]

So are you saying because gays can marry these married straight couples cannot procreate?

No. Read my argument. You have not understood the least part.

Further, what about married couples who do not have children? There are many of them.

Infertililty? Inapplicable. I was not under the impression that homosexuals were infertile. These married folks certainly have tried to have children, but cannot.

What about gay parents with children of their own?

If they have kids, they can't very well be infertile, can they?

Or bisexuals with children from a previous marriage?

Same here.

What about people who adopt children?

What about them? Not all people who adopt children are infertile, nor are they all married. Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I can think of about three much better counterexamples of why marriage is not always linked to procreation, yet you have failed to mention them. Oh well.

There are countless holes in this argument.

Good for you. You can employ rhetoric. I was afraid for a minute you may have forgotten.

[Solly]

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi



The problem I have in Canada is that the people have not had their say on the issue, but rather have had the terms dictated to them by an unelected judiciary.

G'night Napoleon.

Hurray! Let's have government by mob rule, or countless referendums instead.

[Boris Godunov]

*sigh* I answered BK's trite comments in the other thread, he's ignored them and ran here. Think I wouldn't notice?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Would it increase the numbers of heterosexuals marrying?

Would it decrease it? Is this in any way relevant? Answer: no.

Secondly, are there any statistics to speak of on gay marriage in the Unites States? No. So why should I be required to cite statstics showing the effects of something that has yet to happen?

First, you could seek out those countries/states where gay marriage has been legalized and see what their marriage statistics say.

Second, I'm not really asking you to provide the statistics as much as I am pointing out that you're spouting out a lot of opinion about what would happen that is utterly unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. Your argument is from bias, not any sort of knowledge. Your same silly logic could be used (and was) to decry interracial marriages.

Would the birthrates increase?

Would they decrease? Can you provide an iota of empirical evidence that allowing gays to marry will somehow magically cause birthrates to fall?

Yes, I'm sure the heterosexual urge to procreate will suddenly be dampened by two guys tying the knot.

Read my statement again, Boris. Extent. We do not know the extent to which gay marriage will effect society. There will be effects we cannot account for. I do not contradict myself by saying there will be some negative effects, and then saying there will be more that we do not know?

Precisely my point. We don't know the extent - good or bad. You've made claims to a lot of bad extents, but you've not provided a jot of evidence that such things would occur. So you don't know the extent in either direction. You're just making bald-faced assertions, repeating the same hackneyed lines from the religious right wing.

Any evidence Boris? Why would we expect to see this? I keep hearing the that real reason for gay marriage is gay divorce.

Wait, you won't provide any evidence for your spurious claims--and you made your claims first. But I'll ask you--does marriage foster stability in relationships? I know you think it does, you've said so in the past. If that's the case, then there's no reason to think it wouldn't do so for gay people as much as straight people.

You have a church shredding over this issue already. How can you say there will not be negative effects?

Shredding over gay marriage? The Episcopalians are having fits over the ordination of a gay bishop, not gay marriage. Regardless...so what? Who's to say that the breakup of that church isn't ultimately a good thing? IMO, large church structures of the like are things of evil. Individual, local parishes seems like the way to go.

As for protecting marriage, you do not protect something by kicking it when it is down.

Another specious claim, and this one lamer than others. Since you have, again, not provided a jot of evidence that allowing gay marriage will harm marriage in general, this is nothing but empty hyperbole.

I'm combining posts because I hate broken up responses:

Depends on what you mean by love. Should I marry my grandmother because I love her?

Are you equating the love of a gay couple to the love you and your grandmother share? That's rather disturbing.

If you think gay relationships are devoid of the same deep, emotional romantic love of heterosexual ones, then you're either woefully ignorant, in deep denial or just being an ass. Hmm, which could it be...

I would get married in her church, and ignore any civil recognition of the marriage, because the civil recognition would be meaningless.

Sure, go ahead. So when the relationship fails in a few years and you head to court to sort the mess out, don't expect much help from the authorities then. And, of course, we'd have to see what the woman said about that. She might not be so keen on foregoing the civil action and the rights it entails. Frankly, I have a lot of difficulty taking you seriously in this suggestion.

What is this nebulous concept, 'real equality?' You have exactly the same rights as I do with respect to marriage.

Yep, dem negroes have the same raights ta' marry as anyone else, so long as they jes' marry utha negroes.

Yes, and that was my point. The less marriage means, the less people will value marriage.

Yet again, you've not substantiated the claim--at all--that people will, by and large, think marriage means less by allowing gay marriage.

It is, thankfully, only a small minority of fanatics who are so silly enough to think that their status as a married couple is dependant on who else is denied the right to get married.

And for Guynemer, since he (smartly) was fed up with your schtick:

Less incentive for marriage, less encouragement for marriages that are already there. Therefore, less benefits to married people in general.

Sentence B does not logically follow from Sentence A. Furthermore, the second half of the first sentence doesn't logically follow even the sentence's first half. These are, surprise surprise, yet more unfounded speculations based on your fundamental bias, not any reality.

[Potassium]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Infertililty? Inapplicable. I was not under the impression that homosexuals were infertile. These married folks certainly have tried to have children, but cannot.

I really don't think he was talking about infertility. At the very least, those couples who are infertile at least wish to have children. I believe what he meant was couples who simply do not wish to have children.

And I do not see how the hell this was approved. Things like this make me weep for humanity.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I suggest you refrain from answering other's questions in the future. It's a sign of respect for the other poster.

Who are you to talk about respect for others, when you have no respect for gays and lesbians?

[SpencerH]

I think for me the questions are:

1. Does marriage benefit society?

Yes, by helping to provide stability for children in the form of a family unit.

2. Does society have the 'right' to promote marriage?

Based on the answer to 1, yes.

3. Does society have the 'right' to define what is a marriage?

Yes. Given that marriage has legal implications, it must be defined.

4. Is there any reason to believe that homosexuals or long-term unmarried partners cant provide a stable family environment?

No.

5. So whats the problem?

Most humans have the IQ of a chair.

[Spiffor]

To respond to the posts between Ben, Napoleon and Asher about whether the govt should have a say in marriage:

I think the govt should have a say in defining what relationships are legal or not. Pedophilic relationships are forbidden, incest is forbidden, bestiality is forbidden. I think we're all in agreement with that.

OTOH, the govt should allow marriage for all kinds of legal relationships.

So, unless Ben wants to go back to the time where Homosexuals were punished by the law (if the angry mob didn't get them first), I don't think there is any valid point in preventing gays to marry.

[Spiffor]

BTW, does this pretended amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage have any chance to pass? IIRC, an amendment needs a comfortable majority to pass, and I wonder if the Congress will vote massively for it...

[CerberusIV]

I find it interesting that this thread spiralled down into the gay marriage bit without (apart from Boris) anyone commenting on the benefits ban.

This doesn't seem to be about banning gay marriages, although that is the headline. It is discriminating against anyone who doesn't get married. It goes as far as the state legislature can to saying marriage or nothing. Hopefully there will be a way to challenge the legality of this.

How long before they resurrect one of those old laws about putting people in the stocks or whipping them for not going to an approved Christian church on Sundays?

[DanS]

I've never known Ohio politics to be too reactive, even if a little on the conservative side. This is not your basic southern state that likes to meaninglessly thumb its nose at the federal gov't, for instance.

This leads me to believe that this kind of restriction could pass in many/most states in the union.

[chequita guevara]

Ohio sux!

[Guynemer]

Dan--

Perhaps my perspective is colored by being raised in Michigan, but I've always considered Ohio to be a very conservative state. This doesn't surprise me in the least; I doubt a benefits ban would pass elsewhere in the upper midwest.

You can pretty much bank on Republicans getting at least 5% more of the vote in Ohio than they do in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Strawman. I do not say that marriage becomes invalidated, but rather the definition changes.

You know, I know you think you're smart and all, but maybe you should look at thnigs historically before being a BAM. Gay marriage has only been outlawed in the Christian world for 1,000 years. Within the United States, it was a uncommon, but accepted, practice among the Cheyanne and other groups of American Indians. Chinese and Roman emperors married other men (before the supposed fall of decadent Rome, which actually occured once Rome became X-ian).