You have to admit, this group has moxie

#1
vader

vader

El Chingón
Staff member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
34,865
Likes
7,037
#1
Initiative ties marriage, procreation

More Washington News | NWCN.com | News for Seattle, Washington

Whether or not you agree with gay marriage (and I know a lot in this forum do NOT), the logic is there.

“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."
Click to expand...
 
#2
#2
The logic is there only if your opposition to gay marriage rests on the argument that marriage is for procreation only.
 
#3
#3
I think that couples should go through a series of screenings and tests before they are given the green light to procreate.
 
#4
#4
You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming ***hole be a father.
Click to expand...

Smartest thing that ever came out of Keanu Reeve's mouth. Of course, someone else wrote it for him...
 
#5
#5
Gadow said his alliance — whose name itself is part of the parody, forming the acronym DOMA — is a loosely organized group of 15 or so friends. While they will work to get Initiative 957 on the ballot and passed in November, Gadow said he doesn't really want to see it enacted — and would expect the Supreme Court ultimately to strike it down as unconstitutional.
And that's the point, he said. By striking down I-957, he believes the court would be forced to confront its decision in the gay-marriage case.
Click to expand...
He makes a good point IMO. I'd love to see it actually make it on the ballot just so we can watch the religious right have a collective meltdown.
 
#8
#8
vader said:
I agree that telling someone how to live their life is retarded. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

It is a stretch to say that being against gay marriage is tantamount to telling someone how to live their life.

Marriage is a man-made institution -- as such people should be able to say what that institution is (to define it). Saying that same sex couples don't fit the definition is not the same as telling them how to live their lives.

I know it's a shock, but currently I don't fit the definition for Miss America. Is that someone telling me how to live my life?
 
#9
#9
volinbham said:
I know it's a shock, but currently I don't fit the definition for Miss America. Is that someone telling me how to live my life?
Click to expand...

I'm not telling you that you can't wear your dress out in public. :p
 
#10
#10
volinbham said:
It is a stretch to say that being against gay marriage is tantamount to telling someone how to live their life.

Marriage is a man-made institution -- as such people should be able to say what that institution is (to define it). Saying that same sex couples don't fit the definition is not the same as telling them how to live their lives.

I know it's a shock, but currently I don't fit the definition for Miss America. Is that someone telling me how to live my life?
Click to expand...

More seriously, who gets to make these definitions? For a long time black people were not defined as whole people (can't recall the exact fraction) and women couldn't vote. Voting is a man-made institution. Are you implying that women shouldn't vote? Get him LIO!
 
#11
#11
Who even says you have to marry another human...why not condone the holy union of a man and horse?

You can make new rules about anything...and that's what we're talking about doing here. If we try hard enough we might just be able to make a complete mockery out of everything that this country was founded on.
 
#12
#12
J.Quest said:
Who even says you have to marry another human...why not condone the holy union of a man and horse?

You can make new rules about anything...and that's what we're talking about doing here. If we try hard enough we might just be able to make a complete mockery out of everything that this country was founded on.
Click to expand...

In retrospect...the government should have never entered the realm of marriage. As for what this country was founded on...I don't really know. But, marriage is an institution of the church...which this country wasn't founded on as far as I know. The government should have offered to allow people to become officially "united" or whatever and left marriage to be what the church intended...something between god and the couple and recognized by the church. Now, the government, by allowing itself to issue "marriage" equivalent to that of the church, finds itself in quite a quandry with regard to who it can offer this marriage to.
 
#13
#13
vader said:
More seriously, who gets to make these definitions? For a long time black people were not defined as whole people (can't recall the exact fraction) and women couldn't vote. Voting is a man-made institution. Are you implying that women shouldn't vote? Get him LIO!
Click to expand...

Voting and marriage are quite different institutions - one is a constitutionally mandated right and the other is an ideal that represents certain things to certain people. I don't think you'll find marriage in the Constitution -- you will find the idea of equal rights and voting rights. Exclusion of African Americans and women were violations of the Constitution.

To get at TennTradition's point - I see the issue of government rights/benefits associated with sanctioned unions (e.g. marriage) as different than the issue of marriage itself. I don't have a problem with the idea of civil unions -- married couples are granted certain rights by the government that most likely should be extended to other arrangements. If marriage as a social institution has been defined as one man, one woman - it shouldn't be changed by courts. If courts grant the "right" to gay couples to enter into the institution of marriage, they are removing the right of heterosexual couples to define their union as something unique. If the courts decide that the one man/one woman part should be relaxed, why shouldn't they relax the "one" part. What is the legal standing for mandating a change in one term of the definition but not the other. Why can't groups of people have institutions they define and develop remain the way they choose?

Finally, definitions of social institutions will evolve over time. I guess my real point is that society itself should be able to make the definitions as opposed to courts forcing changes to this type of social institution. Put it to a vote.
 
#15
#15
J.Quest said:
Who even says you have to marry another human...why not condone the holy union of a man and horse?
Click to expand...

Let's keep your film career out of this. BTW, Mr. Ed called, he is finally getting that restraining order.:)
 
#16
#16
volinbham said:
married couples are granted certain rights by the government that most likely should be extended to other arrangements.
Click to expand...
That is the problem. Married couples can make decisions for one another in cases of illness, they can carry one another on health insurance, they are legally recognized as next of kin. If the government wants to call that a civil union, then ALL unions should be civil unions. Let the government issue a certificate of union to all united couples, then if the christians want to call it marriage or whatever, let them give out a separate certificate like they do for baptism or whatever.
volinbham said:
If marriage as a social institution has been defined as one man, one woman - it shouldn't be changed by courts. If courts grant the "right" to gay couples to enter into the institution of marriage, they are removing the right of heterosexual couples to define their union as something unique.
Click to expand...
I've heard this argument before, and I think it's silly. It's an arrangement between two people, more like a private contract. It's not a membership at Augusta National.
volinbham said:
If the courts decide that the one man/one woman part should be relaxed, why shouldn't they relax the "one" part. What is the legal standing for mandating a change in one term of the definition but not the other.
Click to expand...
In my personal opinion, as long as all parties involved are adults and consenting, then polygamous relationships should be legal.
volinbham said:
Why can't groups of people have institutions they define and develop remain the way they choose?
Click to expand...
They can as long as those institutions don't involve government benifits.
 
#18
#18
hey guys i happen to be gay and i think the gay lobbiest blew the whole thing out of the water with the whole gay marriage thing. gay couples should be allowed civil unions. its the same thing as a marraige without all the red tape. most gay people just want to live and let live. we want to be able to take care of our partners in sickness and health. we want to be able to buy homes, pay our taxes and abide by the law. if i am dying i want my partner at my bedside with me same as every other married couple. family and the government should not be able to take these things away from us simply because they dont condone the people we are.
 
#19
#19
melissa hyberger said:
hey guys i happen to be gay and i think the gay lobbiest blew the whole thing out of the water with the whole gay marriage thing. gay couples should be allowed civil unions. its the same thing as a marraige without all the red tape. most gay people just want to live and let live. we want to be able to take care of our partners in sickness and health. we want to be able to buy homes, pay our taxes and abide by the law. if i am dying i want my partner at my bedside with me same as every other married couple. family and the government should not be able to take these things away from us simply because they dont condone the people we are.
Click to expand...

I hear those points from a lot of people, and in general, that is why I am all for state-recognized unions (marriage, or not). I think that it isn't just gay lobbiests either ... it is kind of like Al Gore inventing the internet. You can create a group much more polarized to something if you adjust words around. So, people are more against marriage than union..so I think it could be an anti-gay agenda to keep "gay marriage" as a phrase out there. I don't know whose fault it is more - perhaps someone can shed more light on that.
 
#20
#20
melissa hyberger said:
hey guys i happen to be gay and i think the gay lobbiest blew the whole thing out of the water with the whole gay marriage thing. gay couples should be allowed civil unions. its the same thing as a marraige without all the red tape. most gay people just want to live and let live. we want to be able to take care of our partners in sickness and health. we want to be able to buy homes, pay our taxes and abide by the law. if i am dying i want my partner at my bedside with me same as every other married couple. family and the government should not be able to take these things away from us simply because they dont condone the people we are.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
#21
#21
melissa hyberger said:
hey guys i happen to be gay and i think the gay lobbiest blew the whole thing out of the water with the whole gay marriage thing. gay couples should be allowed civil unions. its the same thing as a marraige without all the red tape. most gay people just want to live and let live. we want to be able to take care of our partners in sickness and health. we want to be able to buy homes, pay our taxes and abide by the law. if i am dying i want my partner at my bedside with me same as every other married couple. family and the government should not be able to take these things away from us simply because they dont condone the people we are.
Click to expand...

Glad to have your perspective here. I totally agree that civil unions should be extended to gay couples.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that some who defend the "institution" of marriage are not doing so as a result of homophobia or condemnation of gay/lesbian relationships.
 
#22
#22
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
I've heard this argument before, and I think it's silly. It's an arrangement between two people, more like a private contract. It's not a membership at Augusta National.
Click to expand...

I disagree that it is a silly argument. If the courts change the definition then they are transferring rights from one group to another. The granting of "rights" to one group doesn't necessarily leave the rights of other parties unaffected.

Say for example the courts deemed that all publicly traded (stock) companies must interview an African American for any open CEO position (e.g. in the case of NFL). While this would be a new "right" granted to AA applicants, it would be the removal of a "right" of the organizations to run the hiring practice the way they choose. (in the case of the NFL, the organizations (analogous to voters) chose to implement this rule).

It is quite common that the extension of some rights remove the rights from other parties.
 
#23
#23
volinbham said:
I disagree that it is a silly argument. If the courts change the definition then they are transferring rights from one group to another. The granting of "rights" to one group doesn't necessarily leave the rights of other parties unaffected.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how the extension of marriage rights to same sex couples is in any way taking them away from anyone else. You would still have the right to marry whomever you choose.
volinbham said:
Say for example the courts deemed that all publicly traded (stock) companies must interview an African American for any open CEO position (e.g. in the case of NFL). While this would be a new "right" granted to AA applicants, it would be the removal of a "right" of the organizations to run the hiring practice the way they choose. (in the case of the NFL, the organizations (analogous to voters) chose to implement this rule).
Click to expand...
Your analogy would only work if the government were telling you who you had to marry (example: that you have to consider a same sex partner). I don't see the connection.
 
#24
#24
melissa hyberger said:
hey guys i happen to be gay and i think the gay lobbiest blew the whole thing out of the water with the whole gay marriage thing. gay couples should be allowed civil unions. its the same thing as a marraige without all the red tape. most gay people just want to live and let live. we want to be able to take care of our partners in sickness and health. we want to be able to buy homes, pay our taxes and abide by the law. if i am dying i want my partner at my bedside with me same as every other married couple. family and the government should not be able to take these things away from us simply because they dont condone the people we are.
Click to expand...
Melissa, thank you for your insight. I can argue on principle, but it's nice to have the perspective of someone who is actually affected.
 
#25
#25
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
I fail to see how the extension of marriage rights to same sex couples is in any way taking them away from anyone else. You would still have the right to marry whomever you choose.
Click to expand...


Your are missing the full view of rights here. You can marry anyone you want but what the fundamental idea (at least in the minds of many) of what marriage "means" has been changed.

Marriage is both a legal binding (fits your scenario) and also a symbolic binding. For 100's of years, there was a particular symbolism associated with this event. This is what I really mean by "social institution" and "man-made". It is a collective symbolism, ritual that has been accumulated over time.

If the courts mandate a change in this, they are taking away the rights of people to create, define and practice this particular symbolic institution.

As I've repeatedly stated, the legal aspects and rights are one issue. These can be covered via civil unions. The symbolic aspects are every bit as real but I believe we as individuals should be allowed to define, practice, and defend as we please.

Finally, I recognize that many don't value the symbolism to the same extent that others do. However, that doesn't justify a court solution to mandate change.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top