This is the kind of stuff that makes me wish Esquire hadn't stopped doing their Dubious Achievement Awards. Look, I know gay marriage is controversial and is still a hot-button issue for a lot of folks, and I don't expect everyone to be comfortable with it, but can anyone defend this kind of rhetoric as not being completely bush league?
(Hat tip: Sullivan.)
44 comments:
The only thing that's ruining marriages is divorces. Marriage is a state-sanctioned legal contract.
lowlife said it right. If these people truly believed their own ad, "Every child deserves a Mom and Dad," they'd be working to keep couples from busting up, not wasting their time with this kind of crap.
It just goes to show what I've said for years - religious people are morons. ('Cept for Catholics, a'course, Dougie).
Agreed on all prior points. 50% of straight marriages end in divorce, so it's hard to see how two gay people getting together is "destroying marriage".
I really, really want to know what comes in a "Marriage Protection Kit"...
Some kind of giant protective bubble that you and your spouse enter and live in to protect the sanctity of your marriage from teh gays?
As a transplanted Californian, I'm proud of this state for removing one of the asterix* from the statement "All Men Are Created Equal*********"
*is asterix the plural of asterix, or is it asterixes?
Also, neither here nor there, but I work 1 block from SF City Hall and it is a straight up carnival down there last night and today.
I think the "Marriage Protection Kit" consists of all the plastic sheeting and duct tape that Tom Ridge told us to buy but we ended up not needing.
The birth certificate not containing the word Father does not take away the fact that I am a father, nor does it cancel Father's Day, the day set aside for recognizing our fathers.
Personally, I'm in favor of removing the word "Marriage" from state-issued licenses for civil union.
Yeah, the ad is bush league...kinda like the new moveon.org television ad. It works both ways.
some thoughts...
the word is asterisk, and I am not certain of this, but I think the plural is asterisks.
as a cradle Catholic who takes his faith seriously, I won't agree that "religious people are morons" - even Protestants. I will say that people who wish to use the government to impose their belief on others probably are not properly religious.
it will be interesting to see what happens when the novelty wears off and the Tv folks aren't wanting to interview George Takei and Ellen DeGeneres.
Anon 6.18
Shit, sorry. My bad. Georgia education- gets me every time...
I'm going with, "I don't think so."
Personally, I'm in favor of removing the word "Marriage" from state-issued licenses for civil union.
Personally, I'm for abolishing marriage altogether and just having civil unions. Let the couples decide what they want to call it. *nods*
What does the divorce rate have to do with gay marriage?
Why do gays covet the heterosexual tradition of marriage?
The argument for gay marriage is love between two people who want to share their lives for the rest of their lives.
If my sister and I love each other and want to share our lives, can we get legally married now?
Can my divorced mother and my brother marry in order to share their lives?
Can a 55 year-old man now marry a 17 year-old boy in California? Or a can he marry a 16 year-old with the boy's parents consent?
The argument for gay marriage is this:
IF the state is going to offer benefits to two individuals who enter into a binding legal contract with one another, then the state MUST offer those same benefits to ANY AND ALL individuals, regardless of age, race, gender, etc.
Of course, the age of majority is considered to be an acceptable discriminator, as a minor cannot enter into a binding legal contract. Likewise, animals are not able to enter into legal contracts, so don't even go there.
If you do not want same-sex marriages to be recognized by the state, then you MUST eliminate the recognition of ANY AND ALL marriages by the state.
So, I take it that you are conceding that regardless of the relationship of two people, you find marriage appropriate?
Your premise is flawed. The law discriminates all the time: against drug users, illegal immigrants, adulterers, necropheliacs; bigamists, polygamists, etc.
If you want the state to recognize sexually oriented marriages, then the state must recognize all sexually oriented marriages, regardless the level of "sexual deviance" or the relationship between the two parties. Yes?
Minors enter into binding legal contracts all the time when cosigned by their parents/guardians. Just look at the FLDS situation. Under age girls offered-up by their parents to older men.
I have nothing against marriage, I am myself married.
I feel that marriage is a religious concept. I feel that, in choosing to recognize marriage, and to offer to members who engage in this practice certain benefits such as lower taxes and other legal easements, the state has the responsibility to make the marriage contract available to any two legal adults who so choose to enter into it.
Your premise is flawed. The law discriminates all the time: against drug users, illegal immigrants, adulterers, necropheliacs; bigamists, polygamists, etc.
The law makes certain acts societally unacceptable. If you choose to engage in these acts, you are punished for your action. This is not discrimination.
Disallowing a person from entering into a marriage contract because of their skin color or their gender isdiscrimination.
If you want the state to recognize sexually oriented marriages, then the state must recognize all sexually oriented marriages, regardless the level of "sexual deviance" or the relationship between the two parties. Yes?
There is an argument for preventing a marriage contract between close relatives, as any possible descendants face the risk of genetic inbreeding. In this case, the marriage has the possibility of causing harm to another individual.
For all other cases, so long as there are two and only two individuals, and both are consenting adults, then yes marriage should be allowed.
The other alternative that your argument strongly supports is to eliminate state recognition of marriage, and the benefits accorded to individuals who enter into marriage contract. Make marriage a religious concept only, unrecognized by the state.
Minors enter into binding legal contracts all the time when cosigned by their parents/guardians. Just look at the FLDS situation. Under age girls offered-up by their parents to older men.
I am not sure of the law in this case. I personally do not believe the contracts were legal. In the case of marriage, the law should not allow parental cosigning.
Why are you so opposed to same-sex marriages? How does it hurt you?
Marriage has always been defined as the religious AND civil union of a man and a woman. I don't see any reason to redefine it to legitimize unnatural sexual behavior.
Further, the people of California have voted on this specific matter and their wishes have been overridden by a handful minority. The people feel that marriage is a special arrangement, not one to be corrupted by popular culture.
What's the problem with three people marrying?
Marriage has always been defined as the religious AND civil union of a man and a woman. I don't see any reason to redefine it to legitimize unnatural sexual behavior.
It's not unnatural, and the fact that something has always been does not make it right.
Further, the people of California have voted on this specific matter and their wishes have been overridden by a handful minority. The people feel that marriage is a special arrangement, not one to be corrupted by popular culture.
Loving v. Virginia, 1967, the voters of Virginia had their will overridden by the United States Supreme Court with respect to interracial marriage.
It is the role of the Supreme Court to uphold the integrity of the United States Constitution even when contrary to prevailing public opinion.
What's the problem with three people marrying?
I have no problem with it, so long as all participants are consenting adults. However, as far as state recognition of such a marriage, definition of benefits becomes significantly more complicated, and without care, could result in an imbalance of benefits granted to either the pair or the group.
For the record, I have absolutely no problem with any church that decides to refuse marriage to a same-sex couple (or to a trio or more, since you brought that up). It is only when state recognition of the marriage contract, and the assignation of benefits to the contract, are in place that I insist that it be offered to all consenting adults without any discrimination.
What's natural about a man sticking his sex organ that nature intended for procreation purposes into another man's anus that nature intended for the excretion of bodily waste?
Please explain, Duff.
You don't believe that nature has adaptively selected men and women in order to continue the human species?
Is it equally as unnatural for a man to engage in anal sex with a woman? By that logic, it is as unnatural for a man to put the organ with which he urinates into the orifice with which a woman (or another man) eats. Continuing that logic, any sex act that does not result in reproduction is unnatural, such as masturbation or the use of contraception. Do you agree? I certainly don't.
It is natural for humans to pursue pleasure wherever they may find it. We, as a society, have drawn the line that living or previously living organisms that are not capable (physically or legally) of giving consent are off limits. Anything else, with non-animate objects or consenting adults, is fair game. If that means you want to put your penis inside a consenting man or woman's nostril, I don't care. I'm not interesting in doing it myself, but I do not care whether or not you choose to do it, and I will not stop you.
I do agree that in general, a species has the goal of propagating the species, of continuing the existence and prosperity of the species. This does NOT mean that each and every member of the species must contribute to this goal. By your logic, men and women who choose not to be parents are unnatural. Do you really think that reproduction should be mandatory?
You avoided my question before. Answer it now. How does a same-sex marriage hurt anyone, especially you?
The examples you offer are indeed unnatural. Nature gave us sexual organs for the explicit purpose of procreation. In fact nature has negative consequences for anal sex including rectal prolapse and several pathogenic outcomes. Oral sex has been associated with HPV infections and the transfer of the herpes virus. I hope you use a dental dam. Pleasure modalities should not be given legal standing.
How does same-sex marriage hurt me? No more than incest, polygamy or some stranger's suicide. Because it doesn't hurt me, doesn't make it right. I hope you see the stupidity of your question. Sorry I wasted time answering it. Go butt fuck each other if you wish but leave the institution of marriage alone.
Pleasure modalities should not be given legal standing.
Nor should they make any impact on law at all, positive or negative. What any two consenting adults choose to do with and to their own bodies should be of no interest to anyone but them.
Because it doesn't hurt me, doesn't make it right.
But it makes it wrong? If it's not hurting anyone, then there is absolutely no reason to prohibit it.
leave the institution of marriage alone.
Tell that to the people that fought to change the law to allow interracial marriage. Were it not for them, I wouldn't be married to my wife right now. I feel it is my duty to repay the service they did for others whose equality is jeopardized by the particularities of their genetics.
I'll say it one more time. If marriage is a religious institution, then the state should offer no recognition or benefits to married individuals. If the state chooses to recognize marriage, and to offer benefits to married individuals, then it must remove all religious connotation from the institution and offer it to all citizens equally.
Nature gave us sexual organs for the explicit purpose of procreation.
The irony of a conservative -- who no doubt complains day in and day out about how government should get out of his life and leave ordinary working people alone -- now presuming to tell me what I can and can't do with my sexual organs is duly noted.
I don't care what you do with you sexual organs. Doug. (Based on what I've read here, it's very little.) The issue was: what's unnatural. Leave it to humans to pervert nature and call it natural.
The idea that anything that doesn't impact me is OK is a perversion of a different kind, a perversion of common sense. Can you imagine a legal system founded on this premise? It's the attitude that helped destroy the Roman Empire. Of course I could invoke the AIDS pandemic vector "Patient 0" but the off point liberal responses would consume this blog's bandwidth.
duff, in your opinion any two consenting cohorts should be given marital legal standing. Marriage has special legal priveleges for a reason. The law has been prejudiced towards heterosexual unions for a reason: the promotion of a family with a husband and a wife, a mother and a father. Our laws are rife with judeo-christian values and principles.
The separation of church and state doesn't mean a separation of values. Try as you like, wish as hard as you can, you can't get away from the fact that this country is founded on mostly judeo-christian values.
I, like you, don't consider interracial marriage to be unnatural.
The idea that anything that doesn't impact me is OK is a perversion of a different kind
Meanwhile, the idea that, just because you don't like something, I shouldn't be allowed to do it, is A-OK with you? talk about perversion...
the AIDS pandemic vector "Patient 0
I will actually agree with you that, in some cases, such as in the middle of a disease epidemic, medical condition is an acceptable discriminator. However, this does not make the act itself illegal, only the practicing of that act by that specific individual.
this country is founded on mostly judeo-christian value.
I disagree with "founded on", but I will acknowledge that many judeo-christian values have made their way into our legal system. To preserve laws that are founded on judeo-christian principles only is unconstitutional, just as it would be if a law was made forcing non-muslims to comply with muslim dress codes and behavioral standards. Religious concepts should not, must not, be codified as US law. It is unconstitutional.
I, like you, don't consider interracial marriage to be unnatural.
In the middle of the civil rights movement and earlier, interracial marriage was considered to be unnatural by the vast majority, and even today is considered unnatural by some. We are fortunate that our society has advanced and overcome this prejudice, and I can only hope we will continue to advance and overcome the prejudices of sexual orientation.
Interracial marriage was considered more socially unaccepted than unnatural...an extension of the segregation mindset.
When the vast majority feels that same sex marriage is inappropriate, not when just I feel that way. The CA justices overrode the will of the people of CA, not just me.
It was founded on judeo-christian values and ethics whether you like it or not. We are one nation under God. We are endowed by a Creator. We pray to God before every session of Congress. The Ten Commandments hang in the Supreme Court. I could go on but it wouldn't matter.
The CA justices overrode the will of the people of CA, not just me.
The CA justices upheld the U.S. Constitution, as they should.
t was founded on judeo-christian values and ethics whether you like it or not.
No, it wasn't.
We are one nation under God.
Not part of our founding documents. Was added to the Pledge in 1954.
We are endowed by a Creator.
Part of the Declaration of Independence, not of our Constitution. Not the basis of law. Incidentally, who says the "Creator" is the judeo-christian creator and not the Australian aborigine creator?
We pray to God before every session of Congress.
Not part of our founding documents, and highly inappropriate.
The Ten Commandments hang in the Supreme Court.
As part of a frieze showing the history of law in human society. Not part of our founding documents. Worth noting that only 6-10, and only part of those, are showing.
This country was founded to be a safe haven for everyone, not just for the Puritans. Our founding document, the Constitution, explicitly gives us the freedom of religion, and also the freedom FROM religion. I should no more have to live under your Christian morals than should you have to live under Sharia law.
I agree with you that Christian morals, values, and ethics have made it in to U.S. and State law. I disagree that they should have, and I'd like to see that change. California is leading the way, and I applaud them for it.
According to your argument, polygamy is unconstitutional, marriage between two 12 year-olds is unconstitutional.
The will of the people. One nation under God. Call it "inappropriate" but you can't deny it. Consider yourself fortunate. If it were one nation under Allah, gays would be stoned in the courthouse square. But then you probably think it's unconstitutional that POWs cant' sue the US government in a US court.
What's the next tradition do you want to destroy?
Go after something more appropriate like the failing public school system or the failed war on poverty or the tax code or illegal immigrants.
It is true that there are more important issues that really do need to be dealt with, but that argument can go right back at you - why are you so up in arms defending your Christian-based laws instead of trying to fix the schools?
The fact of the matter is that our rights matter, and if we do not defend them, we do not deserve them. By us I mean ALL Americans, not just the minority whose rights are currently being infringed.
Ahhhh, minority rights. Buttfuckers unite! LMAO
So, what's the next tradition you want to topple in the name of "rights."
Polygamists are adults and they don't "hurt me." What's the prob?
Ahhhh, minority rights. Buttfuckers unite! LMAO
I really fail to understand why one would laugh at the concept of protecting the rights of the minority...
Polygamists are adults and they don't "hurt me." What's the prob?
What is the problem? Holland allows polygamist marriage, why don't we?
"Christian values" have become far too entrenched in the laws of this country that is supposed to offer freedom from religion. It is people like you, attitudes like yours, that push me to activism in defense of America, and of our Constitution.
Al Qaeda and activists like you are the ones who use the Constitution to weaken our security and values. Bin Ladin would be very proud of you.
Sticking one's penis in another male's anus and demanding legal standing because of it is not only a perversion of nature but also of common sense and the people's right to curb such unnatural, perverted behavior.
You call me a terrorist for trying to protect the rights guaranteed to all citizens by the U.S. Constitution? ad hominem, specifically reductio ad Hitlerum - or is it reductio ad Al Qaedum? - as well as being simply wrong. I am certainly not attacking our security, and I'm sorry, but the Constitution should not be dictating our values, it should only be dictating our legal rights.
Sticking one's penis in another male's anus and demanding legal standing because of it is not only a perversion of nature but also of common sense and the people's right to curb such unnatural, perverted behavior.
This isn't about the specific sexual practices of some (most?) homosexual men, this is about the legal rights of individuals who choose to commit to a partnership with one another. Women can be homosexual too, as can men who choose not to participate in that specific activity. Who cares if it's unnatural, who cares if it's perverted, it is [b]not[/b] your place, my place, or anyone else's place, to tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their own bodies in privacy. "The people" have no right to "curb such unnatural, perverted behavior".
You are attempting to force Fundamentalist Christian values on people that do not share your values. Your actions are unconstitutional.
The people have to right to curb any conduct they deem unacceptable. In some communtiies they have outlawed total nude stripping. They have outalwed pornography. They have increasaed the drinking age. You are trying to force your extremist liberal values on the majority of America. We don't like it, we don't want it and we will outlaw it, even in the face of liberal activist judges you depend on to overrule the will of the people, much less the will of God. Anything does not go, as you would like.
The people have to right to curb any conduct they deem unacceptable.
Nonsense. If it is conduct that takes place in public, then that can be curbed. If it takes place in my bedroom or yours, "the people" have absolutely no right to curb anything (so long as the conduct involves only consenting adults and no one gets killed.)
I can accept the limits on stripping, as it can lead to behavior that places a burden on the state law enforcement. I do not agree with the outlawing of pornography, although access controls are acceptable. There are limits to what should be allowed, but they should be a lot more loose than they are now.
You are trying to force your extremist liberal values on the majority of America. We don't like it, we don't want it and we will outlaw it, even in the face of liberal activist judges you depend on to overrule the will of the people, much less the will of God.
Why can you not see my point, that it is specifically the will of God that I object to being enforced by law? I don't believe in your god, why should I have to live by his/her/their rules? The Constitution backs me up on this, and says I don't have to! All I'm trying to do is defend the constitutional rights that we all have.
LMAO. You say that the citizens cannot curb inappropriate behavior and then list inappropriate behavior that only you agree can be curbed by the citizenry. Well, it was always all about you, wasn't it? What a moron.
There are plenty of atheists who don't agree with gay marriage. It doesn't stand on just a belief in God.
COme back when you can debate without a personal conflict of interest.
LMAO. You say that the citizens cannot curb inappropriate behavior and then list inappropriate behavior that only you agree can be curbed by the citizenry.
More nonsense. Behavior that effects others can be controlled by the public. If it causes you or me to spend more money (taxes), or impacts our safety, then there is a reason for it to be controlled.
What happens in their bedrooms, or yours, or mine? Absolutely none of the public's business in the slightest.
Well, it was always all about you, wasn't it? What a moron.
It's not about me in the slightest. I gain nothing by the state recognizing same-sex marriages, as I am not homosexual, and I'm already married.
There are plenty of atheists who don't agree with gay marriage. It doesn't stand on just a belief in God.
As I said, you have two choices. Either the state does not recognize marriage, in which case even those atheists should be happy, or the state recognizes all marriages (call them civil unions if you must, so long as it is equal across the board).
COme back when you can debate without a personal conflict of interest.
I have no personal conflict of interest. The Constitution guarantees me freedom from religion, and your laws are imposing religious values upon everyone. I am in the right in opposing these laws, even if they do not impact me personally.
I am not trying to take away your right to believe and practice your religion as you wish to. All I'm saying is that you cannot force me to believe and practice it also.
Then follow the law as voted by the public.
Sadly, the law is rarely voted on by the public. Rather, it is signed into being by the politicians that we voted for, who then succumb to pressure from lobbyists and interest groups.
Just because there is a law does not mean that the law itself is legal. The U.S. Constitution is used as the ultimate measure of the legality of law. It is the role of the Judiciary system, the Supreme Court, to ultimately decide whether or not a law is constitutional. The Constitution guarantees us all freedom of religion and freedom from religion. If a law forces me to abide by some tenant of your religion, then the law is not legal, and must be changed.
It occurs to me that one of the outcomes I am arguing for would actually hurt me. If the state no longer recognizes marriage, or civil union of any kind, and no longer offers benefits or privileges to individuals who enter into these unions, then I will be losing out on my current benefits. So why do I persist in arguing for equality in marriage, for either equal recognition or none at all?
Because it is what is right.
If you are not willing to fight for the rights of your neighbor, then you are not deserving of your own rights.
God, you self-aggrandizing puke.
Laws are legal, zippy. They may be challenged, they may be modified, they may be stricken down but laws are legal. Even the courts can be overridden by laws that quash court rulings. I know you hope and pray that liberal activist jurists will continue to override the will of the people so that your, and it is all about your, ideals will be shoved down our throats. Enjoy this brief interlude in legal malfeasance until it is righted by the citizenry at the ballot box.
Please stop with the moronic arguments. Are you a Florida or Tennessee grad? A grad?
God, you self-aggrandizing puke.
Touched a nerve, have we?
Laws are legal, zippy. They may be challenged, they may be modified, they may be stricken down but laws are legal.
True... and that's exactly what should be happening. These unconstitutional hetero-only marriage laws will eventually be stricken down.
Even the courts can be overridden by laws that quash court rulings.
Example?
I know you hope and pray that liberal activist jurists will continue to override the will of the people so that your, and it is all about your, ideals will be shoved down our throats. Enjoy this brief interlude in legal malfeasance until it is righted by the citizenry at the ballot box.
I'm not forcing you to enter into a homosexual marriage. I am, however, forcing you to recognize the rights guaranteed to us by this country's Constitution, a concept you seem to have real problems with.
Like it or not, this is not a Christian nation. This nation was founded specifically to provide religious freedom to all. Forcing me to abide by your religion's proscriptions violates my rights under our Constitution. Sure, the voters could amend the Constitution, but I can almost guarantee that will never happen (and if it does I'll be on the first plane out).
Please stop with the moronic arguments. Are you a Florida or Tennessee grad? A grad?
Speaking of moronic arguments... yes, I am a grad, but not of either of those schools, sorry to disappoint.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
Post a Comment