Bush Urges Congress to Pass Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage

[Ben Kenobi]

That is an entirely different case from two freely consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender, and a law that creates a blanket prohibition on marriage among any two people of the same gender.

So the gender of the participants is irrelevant to marriage? I find that hard to believe. Men and women are different from each other, they are not interchangeable parts that can simply be swapped out and swapped in.

There is nothing "unique." You want to tell me what's special about a couple of drunks, married and divorced four times each, going to a Las Vegas drive through to be hitched by an Elvis impersonator?

What other union gets kids MtG? Any other combination of 2 people?

[Arrian]

That the gummint provides benifits to married people on the theory that it'll promote childbirth/rearing is dumb. It should be tied to actually having kids, because plenty of heteros get married and do not have kids for whatever reason (sterility, choice).

DEFEND MARRIAGE, ANNUL MARRIAGES THAT DO NOT RESULT IN OFFSPRING!!

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So the gender of the participants is irrelevant to marriage? I find that hard to believe. Men and women are different from each other, they are not interchangeable parts that can simply be swapped out and swapped in.

Marriage is a social construct. "Interchangeability" is a non-issue, since we're talking about cases of two consenting adults desiring to enter into that social construct with each other.

However, I agree on the interchangeability of parts. I don't think anyone involved in the issue would want my girlfriend's parts interchanged for yours.

What other union gets kids MtG? Any other combination of 2 people?

A gay or lesbian couple can adopt, have kids from a prior marriage, have kids via IVF (lesbian herself or gay via a surrogate).

Any woman and man biologically capable can have kids, whether from rape, a one-nighter, shacking up, or any other situation in which they have sex and one sperm cell manages to do its duty for King and Country. A couple shacking up without marriage can raise those kids to adulthood and never marry.

A heterosexual couple in their 70's might choose to marry, but be biologically incapable of having kids.

A heterosexual couple may choose to marry, be biologically able to have kids, and choose not to. (Ever heard of DINKs?)

It's completely specious to try to relate a particular social construct of marriage to a capacity to procreate. They are independent.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Need, yes. Provide, no.

Might not they not provide stability because they aren't allowed marriage?

Basically, I will acknowledge that gay relationships have stability problems overall. However, might this be because they don't have the cultural support of marriage?

Jon Miller

[SlowwHand]

Without singling out an individual, if the argument against union isn't reliously backed, what is the basis behind not supporting?
Bear in mind, I'm not concurring with the position that religion condemns.

I ask this because of noting religiously challenged adamant against Gay marriage.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

"Activist" judges is nothing more than a label for judges who rule in a way somebody disliked. Most courts have "clock and drop" filings, in which clerks, judges, etc. don't need to be bothered with immediately processing miscellaneous document filings, so you just time stamp it and put it in a box, and voilá, it gets filed. People who complain about "activist" judges are simply looking for "clock and drop" justice, in which the courts do nothing and lie down for any legislative or executive abuse.

exactly

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

It's completely specious to try to relate a particular social construct of marriage to a capacity to procreate. They are independent.

[Darius871]

Ah, nothing like another rantfest of subjective moral assertions from all directions to start the day. Beats a strong cup of coffee.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Need, yes. Provide, no.

Gay relationships not only ought to have all resources available under the law that would encourage stability, but even in spite of the lack of legal protection, gays have struggled successfully to establish an enduring, stable, romantic relationship with someone else of the same gender.

[SlowwHand]

With all the problems facing the world, I can't imagine so much effort being put into opposing this.

[Drake Tungsten]

Without singling out an individual, if the argument against union isn't reliously backed, what is the basis behind not supporting?

A hesitancy to muck around with an important social institution when no pressing need to do so exists?

[SlowwHand]

So to you, this is the big deal, huh? Putting down and suppressing a group of people, who have done nothing but been born.
Ok.

[Drake Tungsten]

I personally don't give a ****. I doubt it will have too big an effect socially (although I can't be sure on that). But I also don't consider it to be the great civil rights struggle so many people make it out to be. Frankly, I find the linking of the push for gay marriage with the civil rights struggle of the '60s to be offensive.

At any rate, it seems like experimenting with our social fabric for specious reasons, something a lot of non-religious people might be wary of.

[SlowwHand]

Not civil rights? Civil rights isn't just a color code.

[Gibsie]

Do you actually think that actively taking rights away from gays (Or at least, preventing them from obtaining more rights in the future) is a step in the right direction, Drake?

And really, you should be condemning Bush- after all, at this moment in time it is he, not the gays with their wacky agenda, who is trying "to muck around with an important social institution when no pressing need to do so exists".