City of San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to gays, weds 1 couple so far...

[Sava]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Yes it's been downhill since they did away with the concept that a wife was her husband's property or chattel (from which we derive the word cattle).

Of course these days, what with them working and voting, all sorts of nonsense gets into their heads that wouldn't if they were chained to the kitchen sink or handcuffed to the bedposts.

Some of them even think they can be judges, and mathematicians, and doctors, and lawyers, and lawks-a-mercy, politicians.

It's the thin end of the wedge- next they'll be allowing gay and lesbian marriages.

BRAVO

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

And secondly, you are already equal in the eyes of the law, since the law does not prevent anyone from getting married to someone of the opposite sex.

Are you really dragging that dead thing around here again? This is the fourth time I've seen you field this argument. Each time previously, the problem with your reasoning was shown, yet you keep repeating it in other threads, as if repitition alone could patch up your leaky logic.

Look, if you want to debate around here, that's great, welcome. But if your arguments are fairly trounced, simply repeating them in thread after thread as if you didn't know better demonstrates only that you are a crank, wasting our time, or both.

When you notice fewer and fewer people taking the time to point out yet again the problems with the same arguments, you can take this as evidence not of the efficacy of your arguments, but of the Ignore List.

[Az]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Yes it's been downhill since they did away with the concept that a wife was her husband's property or chattel (from which we derive the word cattle).

Of course these days, what with them working and voting, all sorts of nonsense gets into their heads that wouldn't if they were chained to the kitchen sink or handcuffed to the bedposts.

Some of them even think they can be judges, and mathematicians, and doctors, and lawyers, and lawks-a-mercy, politicians.

It's the thin end of the wedge- next they'll be allowing gay and lesbian marriages.

Why do you portray this as an idea of women?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by mindseye



Are you really dragging that dead thing around here again? This is the fourth time I've seen you field this argument. Each time previously, the problem with your reasoning was shown, yet you keep repeating it in other threads, as if repitition alone could patch up your leaky logic.

Look, if you want to debate around here, that's great, welcome. But if your arguments are fairly trounced, simply repeating them in thread after thread as if you didn't know better demonstrates only that you are a crank, wasting our time, or both.

When you notice fewer and fewer people taking the time to point out yet again the problems with the same arguments, you can take this as evidence not of the efficacy of your arguments, but of the Ignore List.

Mindseye -- Bennie likes to distort the argument by saying that homosexuals are free to marry someone of the opposite gender, in order to avoid discussing the real problem -- that homosexuals want legal recognition for marrying someone of the same gender.

It's one of his favorite distortions to use.

[JohnT]

Azazel, I'm pretty sure that Molly Bloom is being sarcastic.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Azazel


Why do you portray this as an idea of women?

Because, Azazel, it's the opposite of what I believe.

If you examine what passes for Kenobi's thinking in this and other threads on gender, gender roles and parenting, he seems to think that men and women are genetically predetermined to suit different roles in life, and that is what they should do, regardless if Mr X is better at looking after little Johnny and Mrs. X makes for a superb lawyer, or that Mr. Y is an excellent kindergarten teacher, and Mrs. Y might make a fantastic military strategist.

It's always taken as read by people of his ilk that somehow because a woman has a womb and breasts then it follows like a, b, c, that she'll be better suited to 'kinder, kuche, kirche' as a certain reactionary German political party used to propound.

Frankly I think it's a load of codswallop.

[Arrian]

Ok, now I know why my views are so different than Ben's (besides that whole "belief in God" thing) -

I was mainly raised by my father, who is older and retired when I was 5. My mom worked.

It's a miracle I'm not a corrupt homo! Fathers staying home and raising children! What's next? Women being the primary breadwinners? Oh, right, I forgot, my gf out-earns me by roughly 50%.

My father, by the way, is a product of his era & homeland, which is to say early 20th century Britain. He can be quite conservative. He drives me nuts sometimes with the crap he says on topics like religion and politics (which of course just eggs him on, the old rascal). I count myself lucky, however, that he wasn't so rigid as to rule out doing what he did: quitting his high-level (and high stress!) executive job and staying home with me. I think we're probably both better off for it.

-Arrian

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ok, now I know why my views are so different than Ben's (besides that whole "belief in God" thing) -

I was mainly raised by my father, who is older and retired when I was 5. My mom worked.

It's a miracle I'm not a corrupt homo! Fathers staying home and raising children! What's next? Women being the primary breadwinners? Oh, right, I forgot, my gf out-earns me by roughly 50%.

-Arrian

(Spooky Hallowe'en type voice):

'Come over to the dark side, Arrian. The Homocistas are recruiting.......'

Say, how do you know that your Mum wasn't really a man in drag? And that your Dad wasn't a bearded lady?

I mean, your upbringing was darned unnatural. Everybody knows there are divinely ordained roles for men and women.

Men are by nature more stoical and less emotional, more controlled and intellectual, as any glimpse of the crowds at a major sporting event will show....

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrFun


party-pooper!!

How so? It's an important question.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How so? It's an important question.

But it's much less fun than trashing Ben Kenobi's tired argument once again.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Any word on the State response to a city exceding the authority they gave it?

Schwarzenegger is between a rock and a hard place. His best recourse for his political future would be just to do nothing and let the courts work it out. If he steps in against the marriages, he alienates a huge part of the liberal electorate who voted for him. Since he's a social liberal, this isn't appealing to him. He'd best just pretend it isn't happening.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
If he steps in against the marriages, he alienates a huge part of the liberal electorate who voted for him.

He doesn't have to come out against the marriages. He can just be against cities venturing into areas law out of thier perview.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Hagbart
Cool!

Only 15 years behind. Danish law has allowed this since 1989. (First in the world, yay )

Hey Hagbart - sure, we got a nice reputation when we were the first to legalize porn and recognize same-sex partnerships as equal in the eyes of the law. However, they're not officially 'marriages', and after 1997 I'm afraid we've been knocked off our throne as the most sexually progressive country.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How so? It's an important question.

I should have put a wink with my joke.


sorry

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Adam Smith

But if the only difference is nomenclature, I don't see how the Jim Crow argument applies.

AdamS, I have to say I am rather surprised that you don't seem to get this, especially after Starchild's reply.

Ok, lemme try: choosing a special name for something that is identical in every relevant way to something else implies that they are somehow not the same. If they really were the same, why would you choose a special name for one of them? Where's the logic in that? If there is no reason to differentiate them, why are they differentiated in name?

As Andrew Sullivan memorably put it, giving gays all the rights of marriage but not the name is simply a finer form of discrimination (i.e. you can have the rights, but you still don't qualify).

To alter Starchild's example, suppose you took your two Chinese daughters to a movie. When you try to enter the theater, a polite usher points out that your daughters must enter through a door on the other side of the building, a door marked "Chinese Entrance". The usher assures you that the Chinese Entrance is functionally identical in every way to the Main Entrance, it's just that Chinese (and only Chinese) are asked to enter from the other side.

You wouldn't have a problem with such an entrance?

In case there is any confusion remaining, consider Ramo's citizenship example. Suppose a new form of American citizenship was defined, and called "Membership". The rights, responsibilities and privileges of American "members" would be in every way identical to those of American "citizens". Now, imagine that people of Arab descent - and only Arabs - were asked to use the "member" label, while everyone else retained the "citzen" label.

Can you see why Arab Americans might be alarmed over having a "seperate but equal" form of citizenship?

Similarly, if there are all different types of "marriage" around it is more difficult for religious parents to teach their children what a religious marriage means.

Think of what you are asking of gay people! And for what, because you speculate that some religious parents might have a religious education issue?

Should we not allow mixed-race couples to marry out of concern that some white-supremicist parents might have difficulties teaching their children what a "proper" marriage is?