Aztec,
I didn't say they were equivalent "don't get it twisted" my students say. What
i did say was that the ARGUEMENT used to justify gay marriage can be used to justify other marriage as well.
Massachusetts backs gay marriage
by ignored_one 60 Replies latest social current
-
-
Kaethra
So Yeru, you wouldn't oppose the argument as long as it stipulated one-on-one marriage of non-related homosapiens?
-
alirobbi
Hi K
Glad to see you here. Looks like there a few of us from Randy's here...I posted a link to the inter-racial vs gay earlier but here's the link in case anyone missed it http://www.buddybuddy.com/quiz-1.html
Robin
-
Mysterious
It's worth remembering that similar tactics were used a few decades ago to prevent interracial couples from marrying. A U.S. representative from Georgia once declared that allowing such a type of marriage "necessarily involves (the) degradation" of conventional marriage, an institution that "deserves admiration rather than execration." Interracial couples don't degrade marriage; neither do same-sex couples.
And of course the opposition speaks loudly:
Same-sex marriage is a "social weapon of mass destruction" that "would destroy civilization," Lou Sheldon, director of the Traditional Values Coalition, told Fox News.
"This is a great wound to human dignity that can never be justified," Vatican theologian Gino Concetti told Reuters.
I tend to agree with this statement:
Matt Foreman, NGLTF's director, noted that the week's sponsoring organizations were "fixated on attacking gay and lesbian people while largely ignoring the real problems facing married couples and American families."
Bush signed the marriage protection week declaration a little while back, but it didn't seem to be so much about strengthening marriages in our society so much as making sure to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples. Incidentally marriage protection week started on National Coming Out Day and extended through the commemoration of Matthew Shepard's death. (who was killed for being gay)
A coalition of 29 conservative political and religious organizations created the campaign as a way to promote marriage between a man and a woman as "the God-ordained building block of the family and bedrock of a civil society."
If that isn't a religious agenda used to justify intolerance and equal rights for all I dont know what is.
The group also found that nine of the sponsors' Web sites (those that had search engines) had more documents containing the word "homosexual" (2,369) than documents containing marriage-threatening concepts like "divorce" (1,423) "poverty" (823) or "domestic violence" (190).
Oh the ironies in that!
"Marriage Protection Week roared in like a lion, but whimpered out in the end," said Dave Noble, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats. "Most people saw it for what it was -- a thinly disguised anti-family political ploy."
And if there is one lesson to be learned in all this I think this guy said it:
"Marriage doesn't need protecting," Evan Wolfson, director of Freedom to Marry, told the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network. "When we win the freedom to marry, gay people will not use up all the marriage licenses. There is enough marriage to share."
-
Aztec
Yeru,
I didn't say they were equivalent "don't get it twisted" my students say. What
i did say was that the ARGUEMENT used to justify gay marriage can be used to justify other marriage as well.
You implied that they were the same which is untrue!
The arguement to legalize gay marriage is valid and important. Your attempt to put it on the same level as beastiality, polgyamy and incest is innapropriate and unwelcome!
~Aztec
-
Yerusalyim
While it may be unwelcome it's not inappropriate. Nor did I IMPLY anything other than the fact that the same arguements can be used. Sorry darlin, but when this discussion is opened all the possiblities will be discusssed...why prohibit polygamist marriage and incestuous marriage if we allow gay marriage?
-
JT
While it may be unwelcome it's not inappropriate. Nor did I IMPLY anything other than the fact that the same arguements can be used. Sorry darlin, but when this discussion is opened all the possiblities will be discusssed...why prohibit polygamist marriage and incestuous marriage if we allow gay marriage?
interesting post indeed, while i could care less personally i find the argument of this issue to very interesting. I used to have a number of gay organizations here in DC as clients when i was a field tech and often times we would get into this conversations. and Since i didn't really care i would often pose this same concept to them as well- correct me if I am wrong- basically the idea is to REDEFINE/CHANGE the current definition of marriage, which is basically is "One man and One woman" curently most supporters of this concept base it on the "Bible" or the Will of god, now of course that runs into legal problems esp here in the USA since basing a rule on the bible in todays atmosphere has often times proved to be very weak- so the arguement has been made on Technical Legal grounds and in my view it has a pretty good "Technical Legal" basis and so short of a consitutuional law, this baby is on a roll- but this is my question as well- for those who feel that it should be OK for 2 men or 2 women to marry, would you have a problem if the courts allowed for multiple partners ---2 men and 1 woman, or as mentioned before 2 cousins who are 2 tax paying consenting adult- the reason often mentioned about 2 cousins not marrying is possible kids who may have mental issue due to blood, but what if the man or woman can't have ANY KIDS -what would be the "Legal" Reason why the new definition of marriage can't be expanded to include Marrige is the union of ANY TAX PAYING CONSENTING ADULT? in asking almost every single person no one has presented a "Legal" reason why it can't be expanded- if the definition is limited to just "2" consenting adults- where consitutionally is that based? there are basically 2 camps,--- those who appeal to "god/religion,bible, holy book" as their basis and those who appeal to "Legal rights" this in my view will be one of the most hotly contested issues in the up coming election- it will prove to be the Litmus test- just as an observer- I think most folks have reached the point where a gay person should not be hurt, beaten, fired, lose job opportunities, etc of course there are those who feel they should burn in hell, but i think most folks veiw it as a BEDROOM ISSUE- my only questions and this was expressed to me by some very active gay activist here in DC is -------will the push of this issue cause a BACKLASH- for this to become the test cause for elected officals i was told that the concern is that the "Religious right" will now be able to force canidates to take a stand and we know what that means for a politican- smile so this should be a very interesting issue in the upcoming election stay tuned
-
JT
chillyrodent
I love that post man
-
Abaddon
Yeru:
... gays, polygamists, and the incest crowd ...
... why prohibit polygamist marriage and incestuous marriage if we allow gay marriage?
Yeru, this is so dull; polygamy, polyandrony (sp?) and same-sex marriage are CONSENSUAL. They would no more be right if INFORMED CONSENT was not given than a heterosexual marriage where no informed consent was given.
Constant attempts to sneak non-consensual activity in the same sentence as consensual activity just makes it look like you are incapable of understanding the difference between the two. I don't believe that for a moment; you're not dumb. Nor do I believe you sincerely believe "the ARGUEMENT used to justify gay marriage can be used to justify other marriage as well" would work with non-consensual relationships.
I just see it as a strategy frequently adopted by people with your religio-political agenda, here on this board and elsewhere. If you like slippery slopes so much, take up skiing.
Stacey:
The lack of respect you have shown me during my short stay here on the other hand is amazing in itself.
AH, here we go, you're the victim, of course. PATHETIC. Do grow up and take responsibility for your own actions; I think you'll find that implying another poster have a hidden paedophile agenda - which is what you did - is far worse than anything I have said to you since that event. If you'd made that comment about the board owner or a moderator... you'd of had a little 'holiday' from the board, without a doubt.
But of course, you ignore your responsibility for the way you get treated and expect people to treat you in a way you don't treat others.
Tell you what; I'm more than happy to apologise to you for any hurt I may have caused you if you are going to do the same thing to the poster you treated so shabbily.
Mysterious:
Nice post.
JT:
... the reason often mentioned about 2 cousins not marrying is possible kids who may have mental issue due to blood, but what if the man or woman can't have ANY KIDS ...
Actually the term people have been using is "incestuous"; in some countries 'close' cousins can marry already (in the US, some States allow it; e.g.; Florida), and in all countries distant cousins can marry. I'm pretty sure that most people introducing incest into a discussion about gay marriage are thinking of closer links than that.
But on to your point; what if two close relatives want to marry, but are incapable of having children?
Well, is there still informed consent? When children are raised together they do not tend to find each other attractive - regardless of the extent to which they are related;
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kruger/ep3.html
If children who have been raised together do wish to marry as adults I think it's reasonable to question HOW they overcame natural instinctive conditioning. Obviously it's possible, but if they have been raised in a manner which would remove this block, can they be said to be exercising informed consent?
If people who have not been raised together, and are close relatives, AND cannot have children wish to marry, then one can argue that they are more capable of giving informed consent than the above example, and that there's no risk of harm to any children.
As cousins can already marry today (at most they have to cross to another State or different country), this enables us to define the scope of this group; siblings raised seperately who are incapable of having children, or willing to be sterilised.
Personally, I certainly don't think there should be free access to marriage for this group, but if a couple in this group were willing to fight their case and get a judge to make an individual ruling, then I think society would not collapse as a result.
-
patio34
Re homosexual marriage:
If you are against homosexuals marrying, don't be a homosexual and, if you are, don't marry. Other than that, mind your own business.
(I think that's a paraphrase of Dennis Kucinich)
Pat