Evil Conservative French! (Homosexual Marriage Thread)

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm not talking about the few communists in the country . I'm talking about FDR and his backers (ie, the Democratic Party).

What happened? The Supreme Court ruled that the New Deal was unconstitutional?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
What happened? The Supreme Court ruled that the New Deal was unconstitutional?

Parts, until Roosevelt started making noises about hving Congress change the Court, at which point the Court settled down and let Roosevelt save the country from us Bolsheviks.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by DanS


As Imran points out, you're assuming that public opinion would have held out for 24 more years in the face of a determined debate. I think it would have been much better for our democracy had the debate been put to the people and their elected legislators to make the decision. This seems obvious to me.

And as I have pointed out before, you could argue with equal validity that it may have taken even longer for public opinion to change, but acceptance grew as inter-racial marriages became more common, as people were exposed to them in their own families, neighborhoods, and workplaces; and the republic failed to collapse as predicted.

It was not my intent to debate how long long it may have taken for support to grow in absence of Loving. I'm interested in the question of civil rights being allocated only by popular support.

So DanS, is it "better for our democracy" if the allocation of civil rights is determined by popular vote?

[Ben Kenobi]

That presupposes that this issue is about civil rights at all.

I think it's a little harder to change the colour of your skin.

[Flip McWho]

Its possibly just as hard to change your sexual orientation aswell.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then why do I keep hearing about 'fluxuality?'

[Flip McWho]

Eh I ain't heard 'fluxuality' before. Explain please?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Parts, until Roosevelt started making noises about hving Congress change the Court, at which point the Court settled down and let Roosevelt save the country from us Bolsheviks.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A million people is not a few.

Yes it is . Even back then.

So DanS, is it "better for our democracy" if the allocation of civil rights is determined by popular vote?

I was under the impression that democracy implied some sort of popular majority behind things.

[Flip McWho]

Democracy = the rule of the mob.

[alva]

When the Belgian Parliament voted in favor of gay marriage a few years ago (with 120 votes out of 150 or something), the majority of the population was against it.

Are you sure Spiff? Of cousre it may be true for the rural parts but I very doubt it to be the case in cities ( ok, city )
-

Unclu C:
to Belgium for no adoption rights.:q

What is supposed to mean? Give it some time will you, and AFAIK we one of the very few country's where gay CAN get married.
Not that I really understand why they want to anyway, being progressive and all.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by alva
Not that I really understand why they want to anyway, being progressive and all.

Now that the hetero mariage is less and less attractive (all fiscal and social benefits can be obtained without being married, and in one instance, it is fiscally more advantageous not to be married), and less and less usefull (mariage was -with harems- one way to establish the filiation) with the ADN analysis, it is strange to hear the brightest minds of the planet, or at least of Apolyton, advocating for the homosexual mariage.

Additionnally, the heterosexual mariage had legally a sexual purpose (even in its religious version : mariage not consumed were cancelled by the Pope). The homosexual mariage requires to be legally described differently, and therefore it will not be the same civil act.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Now that the hetero mariage is less and less attractive (all fiscal and social benefits can be obtained without being married, and in one instance, it is fiscally more advantageous not to be married), and less and less usefull (mariage was -with harems- one way to establish the filiation) with the ADN analysis, it is strange to hear the brightest minds of the planet, or at least of Apolyton, advocating for the homosexual mariage.

I believe marriage is a ceremony that seals one's love for another, as well as it provide more rights than civil unions (at least in France). For my girlfriend, it isn't imaginable only to sign a putrid civil union in front of a bored clerk. She wants a real ceremony, with the mayor declaring we are married, and all the decorum... Many people want to experience the "most beautiful day in their life", and I don't see why homoes shoudl be deprived of it.

Additionnally, the heterosexual mariage had legally a sexual purpose (even in its religious version : mariage not consumed were cancelled by the Pope). The homosexual mariage requires to be legally described differently, and therefore it will not be the same civil act.

Err, Davout, you know...
Homosexual marriages can be consumed

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

For my girlfriend, it isn't imaginable only to sign a putrid civil union in front of a bored clerk. She wants a real ceremony, with the mayor declaring we are married, and all the decorum... Many people want to experience the "most beautiful day in their life", and I don't see why homoes shoudl be deprived of it.

You are right, the real content of the hetero or homosexual mariage is limited to one day decorum and fun.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
You are right, the real content of the hetero or homosexual mariage is limited to one day decorum and fun.

I think it is a significant appeal of marriage. The other one is that you seal your willingness to live your life with the one you love.

Apart from that, it is a rights issue, on parentality, on property sharing, and on heritage. I fail to see why the homos should be deprived of any of these aspects.