First same-sex marriage in the US [Archive]

moJo

02-12-2004, 12:49 PM

Okay, i'm begrudgingly starting to like my mayor more and more [edit: to clarify, i'm still bitter that he beat Gonzalez]...this is cool...

Lesbian couple officially wed at SF City Hall (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/12/GAYMARRIAGE.TMP)

History was made at 11:06 a.m. today at San Francisco City Hall when Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon took their wedding vows, becoming the first same-sex couple to be officially married in the United States.

Mabel Teng, the city's assessor-recorder, officiated over the ceremony, inserting the phrase "spouse for life'' in place of "husband'' and "wife.''

"This is a very significant day for Del and Phyllis and for all of us witnessing this historic ceremony,'' Teng said before the couple recited their vows.

About 20 people witnessed the ceremony; many of them were moved to tears as the couple, who have been together for five decades, were wed.

The wedding came just two days after Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that he wanted San Francisco to take the lead in bestowing the same marriage rights to gays and lesbians as are awarded to straight couples, saying he is duty-bound to fight discrimination.

The landmark wedding, the first of many expected to be held at City Hall today, is sure to set off a legal challenge. City officials, in fact, rushed to issue the first marriage licenses to same-sex couples as quickly as possible for fear that opponents would seek a court injunction to stop them. Officials alerted only a handful of people that they were ready to act, wanting to keep it secret until the papers were signed and the "I do's'' were spoken.

The decision was made late Wednesday night, and the clerk's office spent this morning amending the marriage license documents to reflect the change.

In place of "bride'' and "groom'' on the application were the words "1st applicant'' and "2nd applicant.''

After Martin, 83, and the 79-year-old Lyon were declared spouses for life, three other couples were lined up, awaiting their turn to take marriage vows.

Lyon, who will celebrate her 51st anniversary with Martin on Saturday, Valentine's Day, got a call Wednesday from Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, asking her if she'd be willing to take the plunge.

"I asked Del and she said OK," Lyon said. The San Francisco couple isn't new to being firsts. They have been at the forefront of the lesbian rights movement for decades.

"We didn't really think about this before, because we didn't think it was possible," Lyon said. "Now, so much has changed ... and everyone's working so hard to get gay marriage. It didn't seem right to say 'no.' "

E-mail Rachel Gordon at rgordon@sfchronicle.com.

achtungbaby

02-12-2004, 12:58 PM

Okay, i'm begrudgingly starting to like my mayor more and more...

Like your mayor and other elected officials is very positive:) All kidding aside -- the cynicism that has permeated our social fabric certainly has roots in how we've changed our views on political institutions...

But not this day... :tongue:

myself808

02-12-2004, 01:46 PM

amietron

02-12-2004, 10:37 PM

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) - The freewheeling US city of San Francisco made history by granting the first ever same-sex marriage licenses to an elderly lesbian couple as part of a challenge to a ban on gay marriage.

Del Martin, 83, and Phyllis Lyon, 79, said "I do" at the city hall after Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered officials to wed gay couples and issue marriage licenses in an act of civil disobedience against a state law that bars same-sex marriages.

"We got married," said one of the women, who have been together for around 50 years.

City official Mabel Teng officiated over the ceremony for Martin and Lyon, exchanging the traditional phrase of "husband and wife" for "spouse for life."

Instead of calling them "bride" and "groom", the wedding licence application listed the couple as "1st applicant" and "2nd applicant."

"This is a very significant day for Del and Phyllis and for all of us witnessing this historic ceremony," Teng said before the ceremony, carried out as the issue of same sex marriages makes headlines across America.

Other couples were lining up behind Martin and Lyon to take their vows after Newsom, who took charge of the liberal city in December, announced he would defy state law and marry gay couples in a bid to fight discrimination.

But major legal challenges to the decision by city authorities were expected, officials conceded.

The decision to challenge marriage laws was taken late Wednesday, the San Francisco Chronicle said, and city workers spent Thursday morning altering official marriage forms to reflect the change.

Officials were racing to issue official marriage reflect before the expected legal challenges and injunctions are filed to prevent more gay weddings, the paper said.

San Francisco is home to one of the largest US gay communities. The Castro area of the West coast city was seen as the hub of gay activism in the 1960s and 70s.

In the eastern state of Massachusetts, lawmakers struggled meanwhile to find a way out of a legal quagmire surrounding the hugely divisive issue of gay marriage following a landmark court decision in November that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

But lawmakers met in Boston to consider re-writing the state constitution to restrict marriage to the union of one man and one woman.

February 12 has been declared National Freedom to Marry Day by gay-rights groups which are encouraging same-sex couples nationwide to go to courthouses and apply for marriage reflect on Thursday.

In the Los Angeles-area city of Beverly Hills, officials refused two gay couples seeking to formalize their unions. The couples were denied marriage reflect prompting a media-savvy attorney to announce she would sue to challenge the ban on gay marriages in California.

Reverend Troy Perry and his partner Phillip Ray DeBlieck, along with lesbian rights activist Robin Tyle and her partner Diane Olson, were denied marriage reflect by officials who gave them fliers detailing California's same-sex marriage ban.

"We're not going to the back of the bus. We're not not getting on the bus, we're not sitting at the lunch counter, we're just not taking civil union, domestic partnership, we're just not taking it anymore," Tyler said.

Publicity-friendly lawyer Gloria Allred said she would challenge the ban to the California Supreme Court.

"It's time to make a legal challenge," she said. "And so we will be filing the lawsuit. There are no appellate cases in California on this issue, and so we think it's long overdue and we're going to fight that fight now."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040212/ts_alt_afp/us_gays_california_040212221348

moJo

02-13-2004, 01:19 AM

how does this relate to state laws? do other counties have to recognize this as legal? does the state? is there something in the state constitution regarding same-sex marriage? or is this just symbolic? or is this going to start a shitstorm of lawsuits/legal actions/county ordinances?

you called it right. here's an updated article...
Legal battle looms (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/13/SAMESEX.TMP). so i guess it's too soon to celebrate yet...

In a historic act of civil disobedience, San Francisco defied state law and issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples Thursday, a move expected to ignite a constitutional showdown as early as today.

A lesbian couple who have been together five decades were the first to marry, followed by 89 other couples who said their vows in City Hall ceremonies. The cheers and yelps echoed throughout the building all day, as gays and lesbians who had expected to be refused wedding licenses during a planned National Freedom to Marry protest were instead married under the ornate City Hall rotunda. Several couples rushed to get married during their lunch hours after word spread that they could.

"A barrier to true justice has been removed,'' said Mayor Gavin Newsom, who argues that state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman amounts to unconstitutional discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Newsom had announced just three days ago that he wanted the city to explore ways to let same-sex couples marry. City officials rushed the policy into place when they got wind that groups opposed to gays and lesbians marrying were about to file suit to block Newsom's plan.

The Liberty Counsel, a legal-aid group acting on behalf of Campaign for California Families, plans to file suit today in state Superior Court in San Francisco to force the city to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to void those already granted. On Thursday, the city issued a total of 118 marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Newsom "is essentially setting himself up as king," said Mat Staver, president and legal counsel of the Liberty Counsel. "He can't do it. It's like saying he wants San Francisco to secede from California or the United States. What the mayor is doing is only symbolic; the marriages licenses that were issued aren't worth the paper they're written on.''

It appears that the earliest a court could order an injunction to halt the marriages would be Tuesday. As of Thursday night, the city had not received the required 24-hour notice from Liberty Counsel that it would seek an injunction, said Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for the city attorney. State courts will be closed Monday for Presidents Day.

City officials plan to issue more marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples today.

The litigation will hinge on whether California marriage law illegally discriminates against same-sex couples under the state constitution.

Constitutional law experts said the marriage licenses issued Thursday may not stand up in court because marriages are governed by the state, not local, governments.

"In the end, it's much more likely to be symbolic,'' said Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law professor at the University of Southern California. "If the state decides it's not going to recognize these marriage licenses, there's nothing the city can do.''

Joel Paul, a constitutional law expert at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, said the city's actions conflict with Proposition 22, the 2000 voter-approved initiative that bans the recognition of same-sex marriages in California.

For the moment, he said, the marriage licenses have no legal significance unless the newlyweds try to assert their rights as married people by applying for Social Security benefits or seeking custody of property or children.

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office had already started to study the issue of same-sex marriages because of the debate over gay and lesbian unions taking place in Massachusetts, a spokeswoman said. The high court in that state ruled that barring same-sex couples from marrying was unconstitutional.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he would defend San Francisco in court with pro bono legal assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and other civil rights groups.

The Liberty Counsel had planned to file for an injunction Thursday, but the state courts were closed in observance of Abraham Lincoln's birthday. That wasn't lost on city officials, who fast-tracked plans to put the same-sex marriage procedures in place before a judge had time to stop the weddings.

Officials alerted only a handful of people that they were ready to act. By early Thursday, employees in the county clerk's office, in consultation with city and civil rights lawyers, had changed marriage license documents to make them gender-neutral, replacing the words "bride'' and "groom'' with "first applicant'' and "second applicant.''

At 11:06 a.m., two icons of the lesbian movement, Del Martin, 83, and Phyllis Lyon, 79, took their wedding vows, kissed and embraced, becoming the first same-sex couple to be officially married in the United States.

Mabel Teng, the city's assessor-recorder, officiated over the ceremony, inserting the phrase "spouse for life'' in place of "husband'' and "wife.''

Lyon, who will celebrate her 51st anniversary with Martin on Saturday, Valentine's Day, got a call Wednesday from Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, asking her if she'd be willing to take the plunge.

"I asked Del, and she said OK," Lyon said. "We didn't really think about this before, because we didn't think it was possible. Now, so much has changed ... and everyone's working so hard to get gay marriage. It didn't seem right to say 'no.' "

About 20 people witnessed the ceremony. Many of them were moved to tears as the couple were wed, using borrowed rings.

Reaction to the day's events came quickly.

"The state of California must rebuff the efforts of this rogue mayor," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative group in Washington, D.C. "His actions, and the actions of those who are attempting to redefine marriage in Massachusetts, show that homosexual activists are ready and willing to ignore the people and to ignore the law to further their agenda of normalizing homosexuality.''

Dorothy Erlich, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, countered: "Just as we told the state in 1974 when they passed a statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman, that kind of discrimination against same-sex couples violates the California Constitution's promise of equality. Discrimination in marriage was wrong then and it's wrong now.''

On the same day that San Francisco entered uncharted territory, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, introduced the California Marriage License Nondiscrimination Act, which would amend the state Family Code to define a marriage as between "two persons" instead of between a man and a woman.

"Simple enough, but really changes the world for so many millions and millions of people here in California,'' said Leno, who stuck around City Hall for the day to marry couples.

Newsom said the fight was no different from the battles to eradicate laws banning marriage between people of different races and different religions.

"America has struggled since its inception to eradicate discrimination in all forms," said Newsom, who did not officiate over ceremonies Thursday. "California's Constitution leaves no doubts. It leaves no room for any form of discrimination.''

Mr.Lum

02-13-2004, 02:42 AM

how is that a marriage? doesnt there need to be a man and a woman, by definition to make it a marriage?

Mr.Lum

02-13-2004, 03:21 AM

isnt "same sex marriage' an oximoron?

PropellerheadCP

02-13-2004, 06:26 AM

isnt "same sex marriage' an oximoron?

How so? The arguement regarding the "dictionary" definition of marriage being used only for the bond between men and women is slowly becoming less and less valid. The meaning of words can change, since it is the human species who created those words, in order to communicate.

Let's not forget that "Doh" is now part of the dictionary... and that derived from the Simpsons.

yoMAMA

02-13-2004, 07:00 AM

how is that a marriage? doesnt there need to be a man and a woman, by definition to make it a marriage?

no, because they are homosexuals, which is nothing but their own business (certainly not the governments, for those small government types :rolleyes: )

Emperor_Mike

02-13-2004, 07:49 AM

how is that a marriage? doesnt there need to be a man and a woman, by definition to make it a marriage?

By dictionary definition, yes. However, dictionaries being what they are (i.e. a book full of words made up by some enterprising souls a long time ago and given definitions) can easily be altered to accomodate other meanings. In light of this new development I personally think marriage ought to be redefined as a "legal spousal union between two equal partners." It certainly does reflect the change in times and the gradual shift in attitudes toward homosexual unions.

While many Christians point to the Bible as the be all and end all insofar as marriage is concerned, what they fail to appreciate is that the Good Book itself was penned over the course at least a millenium and a half. Therefore, if we entertain the notion that God wrote the Bible with His own hand, we must also consider the possibility that in distributing His written Word, human errors (intentional or otherwise) may have been made in translations. Suppose God intended there to be unions for all - men and women, men and men, women and women - and some monk in 10th Century France thought it inappropriate and made subtle changes to his version of the Bible and suppose this version gained in popularity because many people harboured his opinions. Now imagine the effect this will have on the future Church (or Churches when we hit the Reformation) and its now (presumably) neo-orthodox view on marriage and homosexuality - the orthodox view being "lost" in the midst of time due to a copy error or personal views of the individual doing the copying.

It's not easy telling people that what they think is God's word may not *be* God's word. Maybe this is why I'm so unpopular in Church discussion groups.

kboy75

02-13-2004, 07:50 AM

I love San Francisco. I miss the political environment there.

moJo

02-13-2004, 08:33 AM

isnt "same sex marriage' an oximoron?
depends on your definition, obviously. personally, i see it as a bond between two people who love each other, and want to spend forever together. nevermind the over-50% divorce rate.

Arex

02-13-2004, 09:18 AM

The Liberty Counsel, a legal-aid group acting on behalf of Campaign for California Families, plans to file suit today in state Superior Court in San Francisco to force the city to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to void those already granted.

WTF?! Don't people have anything better to do with their time than to put together a compaign organization whose sole purpose is to meddle in the happiness of others?? Fuck those people.

RX

SunWuKong

02-13-2004, 09:55 AM

threads have been merged.

hooligan

02-13-2004, 09:57 AM

yay for same sex marriages! and marriage is defined freely, we don't need to church and zealots telling us how to run our country.

Chris

02-13-2004, 10:04 AM

Chester

02-13-2004, 11:52 AM

I guess it has been more or less covered, but, basically, the Mayor of SF does not legally have the power to controvert State law regarding marriages. Most people would read this as political grandstanding by Newsom, in order to gain some momentum by building up political goodwill with gay voters...hopefully build some bridges to the factions that he's alienated via his years-long rivalry with Supervisor Ammiano.

That all said, it brings the topic to the fore. If Newsom commits to pushing this agenda, then more power to him.

Chester

02-13-2004, 11:55 AM

heheh kudos for SF going back to it roots. :D

But in all honestly whatever they call it I just want us to get the same benefits as the marry couple. YOu can't deny two people who are in love to deny who they are becuase they aren't society norms.
In the City of SF, same-sex couples already have, I believe, all the legal rights that are accorded to heterosexual, married couples.

I think one step is having civil unions that grant legal parity, but I think the ultimate goal still must be the right to get "married" as well. Right-wing Christians do not own the institution of marriage.

Green_Circle

02-13-2004, 12:23 PM

Ok, sorry to rain on you guys' parade but if you believe in granting same sex partners full rights then what about the children issue?

Do you mean that these gays/lesbians can adopt kids? Can they show up at PTA meets and represent the kid? Time to get serious here. And don't forget surrogate moms so that they can have their own kid with both their blood.

Chris

02-13-2004, 12:44 PM

In the City of SF, same-sex couples already have, I believe, all the legal rights that are accorded to heterosexual, married couples.

I think one step is having civil unions that grant legal parity, but I think the ultimate goal still must be the right to get "married" as well. Right-wing Christians do not own the institution of marriage.

Yeah Chester. They do. And I am happy with that already. That all I really need to live. :)

Mr.Lum

02-13-2004, 12:49 PM

they should get a new name for that bond. people be making new words for stuff like that all the time, "agnostic" for example.

Arex

02-13-2004, 01:24 PM

they should get a new name for that bond. people be making new words for stuff like that all the time, "agnostic" for example.
Why should there be any need for a difference in terminology? Whether or not a gay or lesbian couple can be "married" toa person of the same sex has absolutely no bearing on your right or my right to be "married" to someone of the opposite sex. I don't see how it's anyone's business to determine for someone else what constitutes a proper "marriage." Whenever I think of marriage, I think of my girlfriend. I imagine that a gay person thinking of "marriage" thinks of his boyfriend, and a lesbian, her girlfriend. (Of couse, that may not be the case due to the ridiculous hostility to the notion of gay or lesbian marriage) but why should anyone be denied the ability to fulfill his or her desire to be bonded in "marriage," irrespective of their sexual orientation?

RX

Mr.Lum

02-13-2004, 01:28 PM

marriage is not between a man and man or woman/woman. why not call both oreitations the same? because they are different. same with marriage and gay "marriage". I think they should be able to have the same rights and status as marriages, just under a different term.

Chester

02-13-2004, 01:41 PM

I think they should be able to have the same rights and status as marriages, just under a different term.
I don't. You may have your pre-conceptions of what "marriage" means. I understand that many Christians view marriage as a church-sanctioned, sacramental union that must, by definition, be between a man and a woman.

But as I said before, Christians do not own the institution of "marriage." Nobody is trying to force, for example, the Catholic church to marry homosexual couples. It's not the state's right to enforce that sort of change.

By virtue of the same principle, however, it is not the church or anyone else's right to force the state to not marry homosexual couples.

Chester

02-13-2004, 01:43 PM

Do you mean that these gays/lesbians can adopt kids?
Yes.
Can they show up at PTA meets and represent the kid?
Yes.
Time to get serious here.
Oh, I think everyone's pretty serious about it. People are usually rather serious about having rights denied to them.

Mr.Lum

02-13-2004, 01:47 PM

I don't. You may have your pre-conceptions of what "marriage" means. I understand that many Christians view marriage as a church-sanctioned, sacramental union that must, by definition, be between a man and a woman.

But as I said before, Christians do not own the institution of "marriage." Nobody is trying to force, for example, the Catholic church to marry homosexual couples. It's not the state's right to enforce that sort of change.

By virtue of the same principle, however, it is not the church or anyone else's right to force the state to not marry homosexual couples.

I am not cathlic nor am I christian. I do know how ever that the definition of it is between a man and a woman. thats what it is. you cant "marry" homosexuals. you give them a union similar to it, but you cannot marry them. however, I think not allowing such couples to not have the same rights as others is wrong, but I also think calling it a "marriage" is incorrect.

Green_Circle

02-13-2004, 02:06 PM

Yes.

Yes.

Oh, I think everyone's pretty serious about it. People are usually rather serious about having rights denied to them.

Chester, how old are you? Do you currently have kids or nieces and nephews?

kitty

02-13-2004, 02:46 PM

I am not cathlic nor am I christian. I do know how ever that the definition of it is between a man and a woman. thats what it is. you cant "marry" homosexuals. you give them a union similar to it, but you cannot marry them. however, I think not allowing such couples to not have the same rights as others is wrong, but I also think calling it a "marriage" is incorrect.

why not? who defines what is or isn't marriage?

Mr.Lum

02-13-2004, 02:49 PM

mr.Webster.

kitty

02-13-2004, 02:49 PM

Chester, how old are you? Do you currently have kids or nieces and nephews?

do you think having kids gives you expertise on issues of child adoption? There are many people who are parents (because of stupidity regarding contraception) that have no clue what kids really need or how to take care of them.

I would definitely think that gay couples should be able to adopt children. Basically because I don't think straight couples are overall more stable or nurturing for children... you have bad straight couples and bad gay couples. But you also have very loving and caring straight couples and gay couples. Adopting children shouldn't be about worrying that the 'gay cootie' will rub off, but about how much love you can provide for that child.

However, just to raise the point: there is an interesting issue regarding gay marriage. The gov't generally is becoming more for gay marriage, but the church is very much against it. If the gov't legalized gay marriage (as opposed to civil unions)... but they cannot carry out marriages. Since marriage is a religious concept carried out by churches. So legalizing marriage would be basically the gov't forcing the church to accept things which it doesn't want to accept. The pastor of a church couldn't say not marry a gay couple because legally they should be entitled to a marriage. Is this a blending of church and state that should not be?

But, I do believe that merely allowing civil unions isn't the root of the problem. Even if they have the same "rights" as a married couple, it's not the same, and there would still be a societal inequality of these two kinds of unions. Different cannot be equal.

kitty

02-13-2004, 02:51 PM

mr.Webster.

Mr. Webster's been wrong.

do you think webster has always had this definition of the word 'nigger'?

1 usually offensive, see usage paragraph below : a black person
2 usually offensive, see usage paragraph below : a member of any dark-skinned race
3 : a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons <it's time for somebody to lead all of America's niggers... all the people who feel left out of the political process -- Ron Dellums>
usage Nigger in senses 1 and 2 can be found in the works of such writers of the past as Joseph Conrad, Mark Twain, and Charles Dickens, but it now ranks as perhaps the most offensive and inflammatory racial slur in English. Its use by and among blacks is not always intended or taken as offensive, but, except in sense 3, it is otherwise a word expressive of racial hatred and bigotry.

Mr.Lum

02-13-2004, 02:52 PM

Mr.Webster and everyone else who wrote a dictionary in English. thats what it means.

PropellerheadCP

02-13-2004, 03:02 PM

mr.Webster.

What if Mr. Webster changes the definition? Would you still be making the same arguement?

SunWuKong

02-13-2004, 03:03 PM

dictionary.com says this (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage).

Mr.Lum

02-13-2004, 03:12 PM

Mr. Webster's been wrong.

do you think webster has always had this definition of the word 'nigger'?

1 usually offensive, see usage paragraph below : a black person
2 usually offensive, see usage paragraph below : a member of any dark-skinned race
3 : a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons <it's time for somebody to lead all of America's niggers... all the people who feel left out of the political process -- Ron Dellums>
usage Nigger in senses 1 and 2 can be found in the works of such writers of the past as Joseph Conrad, Mark Twain, and Charles Dickens, but it now ranks as perhaps the most offensive and inflammatory racial slur in English. Its use by and among blacks is not always intended or taken as offensive, but, except in sense 3, it is otherwise a word expressive of racial hatred and bigotry.

thats an accurate definition.

Chester

02-13-2004, 03:34 PM

Mr.Webster and everyone else who wrote a dictionary in English. thats what it means.
Etymologists, linguists, and authors of dictionaries are not necessarily formulaters of law. A mere dictionary definition is not grounds for denial of civil rights.

Chester, how old are you? Do you currently have kids or nieces and nephews?
Why don't you just make your point instead of asking irrelevant questions?

Mr.Lum

02-13-2004, 03:45 PM

Chester, Im saying its not a marriage. I am not oposed to gays having the same right is in a similar union.

Chris

02-13-2004, 03:48 PM

Etymologists, linguists, and authors of dictionaries are not necessarily formulaters of law. A mere dictionary definition is not grounds for denial of civil rights.

Why don't you just make your point instead of asking irrelevant questions?

Okay enough of this. Get back on topic.

Chester, how old are you? Do you currently have kids or nieces and nephews?

What does someone age is about doing with marriage.

If you want to discuss the issues. You are more than welcome to start one.

Or I will be closing this thread.

kitty

02-13-2004, 03:59 PM

dictionary.com says this (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage).

wow... I'm surprised that dictionary.com has put that in. Surprised and impressed.

thats an accurate definition.

I realize this. But do you think in the 1800's, that was what was always in the Webster's dictionary?

Chester

02-13-2004, 04:47 PM

Chester, Im saying its not a marriage. I am not oposed to gays having the same right is in a similar union.
I know. And I'm saying that you do not necessarily have the right to define what is or what is not worthy of the title "marriage." I understand that you're not trying to limit the legal rights of homosexuals, but please consider that you are denying the right of two men to be "married," which is, nonetheless, a denial of their constitutional rights.

Mr.Lum

02-13-2004, 04:53 PM

not if a marriage is not in the eyes of the law between a man and a man.

Chester

02-13-2004, 05:05 PM

not if a marriage is not in the eyes of the law between a man and a man.
Of course.

First of all, if you're basing your justification on law, you're going to have to find a new justification when/if the law is changed. Just like you'll need to find a new justification if dictionaries expand their definitions of "marriage."

Secondly, my and many other people's argument would be that the fundamental law of the land -- the Constitution -- would demand that homosexual couples be able to marry.

Mr.Lum

02-13-2004, 05:11 PM

it does? can you post that up?

Chester

02-13-2004, 05:18 PM

it does? can you post that up?
Post what? An argument for gay marriages based on Constitutional Law?

I'll refrain. Just check out the 14th Amendment. The equal protection clause is commonly cited as a support for Civil Rights cases and should apply in the situation of gay marriages.

Green_Circle

02-13-2004, 05:31 PM

moJo

02-13-2004, 06:07 PM

Chester

02-13-2004, 06:33 PM

You guys are younger and don't yet realize the ramifications of all that's involved.
To a large extent, that can be true. To a large extent, that can be ridiculously presumptious.
If you guys don't have kids or nieces, nephews and you don't wish to answer, we have something here in San Fran called NIMBY which means not in my back yard.
NIMBYism is not a San-Francisco-specific phenomenon, by any means. Also, I'm having a difficult time understanding what NIMBYism -- usually considered to be something regarding land use -- has to do with gay marriages.
Anyway it was perhaps unfair of me to ask such a question that would take lots of time and critical thinking to answer and not in just a split second from the gut.
I think it's unfair for you to expect us to understand what you're talking about, considering how scattered and nebulous your ostensibly-sagacious statements are.

Emperor_Mike

02-13-2004, 06:41 PM

You guys are younger and don't yet realize the ramifications of all that's involved. You speak from the gut and not from the grey matter. In a perfectly correct world, perhaps we can have children raised and nurtured by same sex couples who only asked that they be allowed to marry and have the same rights as male/female unions. Granted that doesn't guarantee healthy households either but would they have more of a stable household or less or the same?
If you guys don't have kids or nieces, nephews and you don't wish to answer, we have something here in San Fran called NIMBY which means not in my back yard. The same thinking can be applied to who's kids would be adopted by these same sex couples. Imagine everyone going to China and Korea to adopt, similar to what is happening now. Anyway it was perhaps unfair of me to ask such a question that would take lots of time and critical thinking to answer and not in just a split second from the gut. Kids are precious little things not pets or little dolls.

I think your statement lacks logic and good, proper reasoning. While I recognise that you may be trying to argue from a pragmatic point of view, I honestly don't think pragmatism is really that big of an issue in matters of social reform (because this is what it is.) Opposition to homosexual marriages and rights to adopt children can be equated in some fashion to the women's rights movement or any other social movements in the early and mid 20th century. You have opposition standing against reform and you have proponents of change. Eventually one side will win and the side that ends up with the short end of the stick will have to live it. No, things will not be perfect, but all the same you will have improvements in areas of society where there wouldn't be any such developments without a fight for social liberties. Your arguement falls flat due to the fact that the method you're attempting to use to justify your views have been refuted time and time again in mass movements in areas such as human rights, women's rights, etc. I ask you now, why should this be any different? If society can gradually open up and social progress allowed to take its course in, let's say, the rights of Black Americans why shouldn't an equal opportunity be afforded to homosexuals? I find it deeply disturbing that so much of intolerance (exposed in its nakedness with the "fig leaf" pretense of "I'm not against homosexuals, just the redefinition of marriage" torn away at last) hinges upon badly formed, pseudo-intellectual clap trap that the majority pass off as "reason."

To deny an individual or a group of individuals of their rights and privileges as accorded to them by a free and just society is the single worst thing anyone can perpetrated upon their fellow human beings. Your statement is particularly outrageous in that you're implying that homosexual husbands and wives would not treat their children with the same care as a heterosexual couple and I quote:

If you guys don't have kids or nieces, nephews and you don't wish to answer, we have something here in San Fran called NIMBY which means not in my back yard. The same thinking can be applied to who's kids would be adopted by these same sex couples. Imagine everyone going to China and Korea to adopt, similar to what is happening now. Anyway it was perhaps unfair of me to ask such a question that would take lots of time and critical thinking to answer and not in just a split second from the gut. Kids are precious little things not pets or little dolls.

How can you, in all honesty and in the name of speaking from "grey matter" claim such an offensive comment as your own? You simply haven't the right to issue such a blatant criticism of other people's parenting skills. Bad parenting is an ill that knows no sexual orientation and to equate it with homosexual marriages and the prospect of adoption is irresponsible, unacceptable, and an affront to everything common decency in the eyes of good social morals stands for.

I also find it particularly offensive that you jumped to a very rash assumption that we "speak from the gut and not from the 'grey matter.'" I can personally assure you (and rightly so) that in my five years spent on various actions promoting social tolerance I have never met anyone who has accused my words, my phrases, and my ideas of being without intellectual merit and based solely on spontaneous statements "with heart but without brain." The same can also be said of many members here on YW. You underestimate us and speaking from a personal standpoint, I find your statement to be intellectually bankrupt in every respect.

Green_Circle

02-13-2004, 08:49 PM

PropellerheadCP

02-13-2004, 10:16 PM

Green_Circle

02-13-2004, 10:26 PM

Let's put it this way, I'm straight. What about you?
Does it seem I've offended some members of YW's gay community? How is it so?

AngryABCGirl

02-13-2004, 11:29 PM

Let's put it this way, I'm straight. What about you?
Does it seem I've offended some members of YW's gay community? How is it so?

I'm straight, and I don't mind gays being allowed to marry or adopt kids, in fact I'm all for it.

Green_Circle

02-13-2004, 11:58 PM

Aznbuff, you are barely legal yourself.

Why must you insist that people are being irrational for thinking otherwise, in regards to same sex marriages? There's a huge difference between being PC and being generally more open minded.

Perhaps you would need to explain yourself in full, especially regarding the adoption issue, in order to clarify your concerns, because at this moment, someone appears to be homophobic to me.

I live in san Francisco, I wasn't born here, I moved here. Does that sound homophobic?

To a large extent, that can be true. To a large extent, that can be ridiculously presumptious.

NIMBYism is not a San-Francisco-specific phenomenon, by any means. Also, I'm having a difficult time understanding what NIMBYism -- usually considered to be something regarding land use -- has to do with gay marriages.

I think it's unfair for you to expect us to understand what you're talking about, considering how scattered and nebulous your ostensibly-sagacious statements are.

If you understand, it will soon sink in.

kitty

02-14-2004, 02:33 AM

Green_Circle, your post was extremely condescending. Being younger doesn't necessarily make the people here stupider or more foolhardy. We are all here because we want to discuss issues, and some of us not having kids doesn't mean that we consider children to be pets or dolls. I personally take *great* offense to that, since I know that I have a) had enough experience helping to raise children and b) have put a lot of thought into where I stand on this issue.

Secondly, even if we were to defer to your 'greater wisdom'... you have yet to say what that 'wisdom' is. Why don't you support gay marriage or adoption for gay couples? What is it that your extra decade or two on this earth has provided that we just can't understand? You seem to be using your heterosexuality as the be all and end all of why you are right. Perhaps I'm being selfish, but I'm gonna need a little more.

I've heard some interesting reasons as to why adoption should be limited to straight couples. What're yours?

moJo

02-14-2004, 02:47 AM

Let's put it this way, I'm straight. What about you?
Does it seem I've offended some members of YW's gay community? How is it so?
so...what kind of ramifications are you referring to? can you explain in more detail why you think same-sex marraiages would be detrimental to child-rearing?

also, what are we to infer from your "i'm straight" statement?

AngryABCGirl

02-14-2004, 03:51 AM

Aznbuff, you are barely legal yourself.
.
You could go to say I'd be more paranoid cause I'm younger, when I'm not. That's pretty sad, not to mention insulting. Also, my parents honestly were not ready and not expecting to have me, and well, that wasn't that great of a chapter of my life for me to find out. At least when I know two gay parents adopt (and there are TONS of kids who need to be adopted out there) that they're ready and willing to care and love for that kid.

Oh yeah, I was also wondering, do you have kids and has your straight upbringing benefited them more you think than another?

Do you think white parents would bring kids up better in the US to fit in too?

Cause not that long ago I'd be hearing the same kind of sentiments for anti-miscegnation laws.

Emperor_Mike

02-14-2004, 04:22 AM

I shall exercise my NIMBY rights. If you guys have the courage of your convictions, by all means let your own be the subjects, not mine. This is where your PC is making your decisions for you.
Keep in mind I enjoy PC as much as anyone else but you' ve got to get hold of yourselves once in a while, like now.

You are entitled to your own opinions on the matter, of course. We are not in the business of depriving you of your right to free speech, however flawed it may be. It has nothing to do with political correctness, by the way. This issue is about giving rights to others and more broadly, to eliminate discrimination in this area of society.

Let's put it this way, I'm straight. What about you?
Does it seem I've offended some members of YW's gay community? How is it so?

I am straight as well, but I also have the good sense to know that it's utterly wrong to oppose something like this. You've done more than offend YW gay community. A few of your posts back attempted to patronise us with what seemed to be a "you're young and thus inexperienced and cannot reason well" attitude. I can assure you that many of us here are in possession of well and fully developed mental faculties and I sincerely hope that you will reconsider your rather misplaced opinions of who you're debating with. Most of know enough, in any case, to see that an opposition to something as fundamental as rights for people (nevermind that they're homosexual or heterosexual) is a gross travesty against national and international declarations on having social, economic, and political liberties.

Green_Circle

02-14-2004, 06:55 AM

Emperor_Mike

02-14-2004, 07:31 AM

Do you, Mike? Do you have the good sense to know? We are about(if it stands, which I highly doubt) to embark on a road not yet traveled. And here we are with tiny tots in tow. This new San Fran law hasn't yet addressed the question of children only adult issues of same sex marriage/unions. When it does come up, there will be some very serious matters to deal with.

Yes, I have enough good sense to know that we are about to embark on a course similar to those travelled upon by proponents of women's rights and the rights of Black Americans. I see no difference between the struggles ahead on this matter and those confronted by people who supported the movements I mentioned earlier. You speak so broadly on issues yet fail completely to address the finer points which would serve to illustrate just what it is you're getting at instead of leading us to comment on your generalisations. You mention ramifications, issues, difficulties and yet you never once mentioned in detail what exactly constitutes as ramifications, issues, etc. I would compare your statements to a man who says the moon is made of cheese and when asked why he thinks that is case he simply reiterates that the moon is made of cheese. In short, it doesn't seem to me that you have ANY arguments worth giving. Perhaps you can prove me wrong by providing some semblance of hard facts and good reasoning to back up your points.

You mention children but fail to elaborate on that. Are you insinuating that homosexual couples will make bad parents? Or perhaps what you're trying to say is that children of homosexual husbands or wives will be ridiculed in school? If it's the latter point you're trying to make, let us consider how African-American children were treated following the end of segregation in schools and how they are viewed today by their peers. It seems to me that you're trying to say that children must be protected from negative events that may arise from having parents of the same sex. Answer me this, however: If no initiatives are taken to introduce change to the betterment of society then how do you expect humanity to develop? If segregration was allowed to continue in schools on the account that someone didn''t want black children to suffer taunts from their white classmates how do you think this will reflect on social progress and human rights as a whole?

Give us something other than "It shouldn't be done because of 'INSERT GROSS GENERALISATION HERE.'" Since you spoke of us being not "experienced" enough to "speak from the grey matter" perhaps you, as someone who perceives himself to be wiser and more learned, can shed some proper light on what you think of this? Everyone can disagree with an idea in a debate, but if you can't make a good point or prove the validity of your views then you might as well just sit down, be quiet, and listen.

PropellerheadCP

02-14-2004, 08:09 AM

Let's put it this way, I'm straight. What about you?
Does it seem I've offended some members of YW's gay community? How is it so?

You still have failed to describe what's on your mind. So far, it means that you don't have an arguement. Only insults. Please explain what you are trying to imply.

You being straight has nothing to do with the point.

I live in san Francisco, I wasn't born here, I moved here. Does that sound homophobic?

I went to art school, which had a huge gay population. Yet, I've witnessed a lot of gay bashing and closeted homophobic attitudes there, by the straight students. Living in San Francisco doesn't mean that you can't be a closeted homophobic.

BTW: I'm relatively new here. How old are you, Green_Circle?

kitty

02-14-2004, 08:57 AM

When it does come up, there will be some very serious matters to deal with.

Which are?

kuilong

02-14-2004, 03:45 PM

why not? who defines what is or isn't marriage?
mr.Webster.

No, no he doesn't. The definitions of words are descriptive, not prescriptive; dictionaries try to make a list of how people understand words, they don't try to tell people how words should be understood. If native English speakers understand "marriage" to mean same-sex or different-sex, then that's what marriage means. Some caveats:

1. Most native English speakers probably don't think that.
2. This doesn't apply to marriage as a legal status.

Chester

02-14-2004, 04:24 PM

I shall exercise my NIMBY rights.What are you talking about? There is no such thing as "NIMBY rights."
If you guys have the courage of your convictions, by all means let your own be the subjects, not mine. What are you talking about? Are you talking about children? Children being test subjects?

Nobody is saying that your children should be gay, should marry another gay person, adopt a gay person, or be adopted by a gay person.
Keep in mind I enjoy PC as much as anyone else but you' ve got to get hold of yourselves once in a while, like now.I enjoy personal computers as well, but I still don't understand anything you're saying.

It would be helpful, if you could write with any degree of clarity whatsoever.

rice cracker

02-14-2004, 04:57 PM

Gays should be allowed to marry each other just like people of different races are allowed to marry each other.

kuilong

02-14-2004, 07:15 PM

Gays should be allowed to marry each other just like people of different races are allowed to marry each other.

Should people and animals be allowed to marry each other like people of different races can? (Mandatory disclaimers: 1. This might be a bad analogy. 2. I'm not implying a 'no' answer, some people, like Dr. Peter Singer, legitimately believe that humans and animals can have "mutually satisfying" sexual relationships. The only reason I ask is that I think it may cause some people to rethink their support or opposition of either rice cracker's statement or mine.)

rice cracker

02-14-2004, 08:18 PM

Should people and animals be allowed to marry each other like people of different races can? (Mandatory disclaimers: 1. This might be a bad analogy. 2. I'm not implying a 'no' answer, some people, like Dr. Peter Singer, legitimately believe that humans and animals can have "mutually satisfying" sexual relationships. The only reason I ask is that I think it may cause some people to rethink their support or opposition of either rice cracker's statement or mine.)

I'm not sure what beastiality has to do with homosexuality. Unless you're implying something...

kuilong

02-14-2004, 08:42 PM

I'm not sure what beastiality has to do with homosexuality. Unless you're implying something...

No, I'm not implying anything. I'm asking a serious question as to where you divide people/animals/things that can marry and people/animals/things that can't, and why.

rice cracker

02-14-2004, 08:45 PM

No, I'm not implying anything. I'm asking a serious question as to where you divide people/animals/things that can marry and people/animals/things that can't, and why.

*sigh* Is an animal concious of the nature of the relationship between it and the human that wants to marry it? Or is it just rape?

PropellerheadCP

02-14-2004, 08:57 PM

No, I'm not implying anything. I'm asking a serious question as to where you divide people/animals/things that can marry and people/animals/things that can't, and why.

Well, for one, same sex marriages are between 2 grown, loving human beings. I think that's pretty simple.

Another is that an animal probably isn't aware of what a marriage with a human means. Therefore if an "animal love'n" person wants to marry his/her pet, it wouldn't be with the consent of the animal, now would it?

kuilong

02-14-2004, 09:13 PM

*sigh* Is an animal concious of the nature of the relationship between it and the human that wants to marry it? Or is it just rape?

I think I probably shouldn't have asked the question, but it's not really rape if it's impossible for the animal to give consent, is it? After all, we kill animals without their consent for food, so the consent of animals is hardly the issue here. Like I mentioned, Peter Singer believes bestiality should only be illegal if it involves cruelty, and that it "ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings."

Well, for one, same sex marriages are between 2 grown, loving human beings. I think that's pretty simple.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that just as marriage only being between between "2 grown, loving human beings" might seem self-evident and "pretty simple" to you, to a critic of homosexual marriage a relationship between "2 grown, loving human beings of opposite sex" might seem equally self-evident.

Sigh, as I mentioned, I regret bringing up this topic, so I guess I should end this with a "never mind".

rice cracker

02-14-2004, 11:21 PM

Sigh, as I mentioned, I regret bringing up this topic, so I guess I should end this with a "never mind".

I think that is a great idea, as it has not been proven that animal rights as we know it extends to fucking them thus rendering your analogy pointless.

kuilong

02-15-2004, 01:01 AM

I shudder at bringing this up now, but what about polygamy?

Green_Circle

02-15-2004, 04:26 AM

PropellerheadCP

02-15-2004, 10:31 AM

kitty

02-15-2004, 11:26 AM

I'm in my 30's, but I guess we;re all old enough here to be married and have children, How about you , MiKe? At 23 aren't you old enough to be married with maybe 2 kids? It may sound remote but I'm serious. Anyone else here married wih kids?

do you ever plan on answering the substantial number of people who are asking you to clarify your position on gay marriage?

I shudder at bringing this up now, but what about polygamy?

actually, kuilong, I understood your point about bringing up beastiality. I tend to agree with Peter Singer (though I don't know who he is) about it...

as far as polygamy, I also agree that if every party is willing, why shouldn't they all be married? As long as we extend the right to one man having a number of wives, as one wife having a number of husbands.

Though, as I raised the point earlier, the interesting controversy for me is if the gov't can dictate to the church that they *must* marry those who are legally able to be married. I.e., should we legalize gay marriage if most churches would refuse to marry them -- thereby forcing the church to accept it... and blurring the lines of church and state?

kuilong

02-15-2004, 12:03 PM

do you ever plan on answering the substantial number of people who are asking you to clarify your position on gay marriage?

actually, kuilong, I understood your point about bringing up beastiality. I tend to agree with Peter Singer (though I don't know who he is) about it...

as far as polygamy, I also agree that if every party is willing, why shouldn't they all be married? As long as we extend the right to one man having a number of wives, as one wife having a number of husbands.

I think that position is logically consistent. Heck, we could even have line marriages like in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (kinky!).

Though, as I raised the point earlier, the interesting controversy for me is if the gov't can dictate to the church that they *must* marry those who are legally able to be married. I.e., should we legalize gay marriage if most churches would refuse to marry them -- thereby forcing the church to accept it... and blurring the lines of church and state?

They can have a civil ceremony (as is required in most of continental Europe) or be wedded in a church which does solemnize gay marriage.

kitty

02-15-2004, 01:19 PM

Green_Circle

02-15-2004, 01:57 PM

Why don't you get to your point, rather than dancing around it?

Ok, I see you guys have so many questions asking me to explain my position and justify my stand. Like Kitty, this is also academic for me as well. I will say this; I'm a registered voter and I exercise this right at every opportunity. Rather than continue this debate, here's a chance for you to sway my vote because as far as I'm concerned this issue is dead in the water. So talk to me. My vote happens to be of the majority opinion in this particular case. If you can explain to me why I should vote otherwise, I want to hear it. :rolleyes:

PropellerheadCP

02-15-2004, 03:01 PM

Emperor_Mike

02-15-2004, 03:37 PM

Ok, I see you guys have so many questions asking me to explain my position and justify my stand. Like Kitty, this is also academic for me as well. I will say this; I'm a registered voter and I exercise this right at every opportunity. Rather than continue this debate, here's a chance for you to sway my vote because as far as I'm concerned this issue is dead in the water. So talk to me. My vote happens to be of the majority opinion in this particular case. If you can explain to me why I should vote otherwise, I want to hear it. :rolleyes:

No, it shouldn't be our objective to try to sway your opinion. My aim at least is not to change your mind on this issue because that prerogative is yours and yours alone. To follow a course contrary to that would be like me imposing my views on you without letting you think over it for yourself. After all, I'm not the one doing the thinking for you nor would I want to. You have the right to do whatever you'd like and vote on whatever position you see fit. My only aim is to show you that your way of thinking is flawed (in my eyes) and hope that you will use logic to demonstrate your points rather than relying on general statements alone to get a hazy, undefined position across.

If you can build a good argument on solid foundations, then I will respect you for it even if I do not agree with it myself (but not before challenging your views and forcing you to explain yourself until I am satisfied that you actually make sense, of course.) At the rate you're going, however, I don't see anything that's remotely logical and that is what I'm primarily interested in. As far as I'm concerned, this is a rather one sided debate at the moment (i.e. game set point to Emperor Mike.) Force me to think about your position by articulating your beliefs and reasoning into something I can read and say, "Yes, Green Circle has a point there."

Faithless

02-15-2004, 03:47 PM

kuilong

02-15-2004, 04:09 PM

true, but a civil ceremony would constitute a civil union... which is not the same as marriage. To have a truly equal system, gay couples and straight couples should have equal options for marriage... i.e., gay marriages should be recognized by churches etc... or it's not getting at one of the points of trying to fight for it (equal rights for gay couples)... I mean, what about an Episcopalian gay man who wishes to have an Episcopalian wedding... and gay marriage is legalized but his church refuses to carry out the ceremony? Does he have basis to sue the church?

as i said, this is mostly academic for me, since I think gay marriages should be legalized. I just wonder what to do about this quandry.

Actually, civil ceremonies are marriages in the same sense church marriages are. Both issue marriage licenses, and it's not the same as the 'civil union' that many states have had recently for gay couples.

And while the government and law should doubtless treat people equally, why should a private organization?

kitty

02-15-2004, 07:55 PM

Actually, civil ceremonies are marriages in the same sense church marriages are. Both issue marriage licenses, and it's not the same as the 'civil union' that many states have had recently for gay couples.

And while the government and law should doubtless treat people equally, why should a private organization?

okay... I wasn't aware of a distinction between civil ceremonies and a civil union...

my question is would the private organization be put to the law if they refused to marry a couple legally entitled to marriage? can they do that under law?

Ok, I see you guys have so many questions asking me to explain my position and justify my stand. Like Kitty, this is also academic for me as well. I will say this; I'm a registered voter and I exercise this right at every opportunity. Rather than continue this debate, here's a chance for you to sway my vote because as far as I'm concerned this issue is dead in the water. So talk to me. My vote happens to be of the majority opinion in this particular case. If you can explain to me why I should vote otherwise, I want to hear it. :rolleyes:

this is getting ridiculous. if this is academic, then i'd be interested in debating this issue with you. unfortunately, I think we have all laid our cards on the table, as much as we can. it's impossible to have a discussion if there is no reference point from the opposition. what are you thinking? why do you believe what you believe? how can we continue to debate if we dont' know what specifically you believe as a counterargument to what has already been put forth?

at this point, I think you either

a) have no real understanding of what you believe and know you will lose this battle of wits
b) are afraid of being labelled as a homophobe
c) know that you are fundamentally wrong but refuse to accept it
d) are just trying to troll
e) all of the above

This is unfair to the rest of us who have been patient and receptive to your opinion, and combined with the condescending attitude you copped out earlier, I think it is more than your turn to actually say something intelligent.

If you can.

kuilong

02-15-2004, 08:10 PM

okay... I wasn't aware of a distinction between civil ceremonies and a civil union...

my question is would the private organization be put to the law if they refused to marry a couple legally entitled to marriage? can they do that under law?

They can refuse whoever they want. For instance, the LDS church does not marry ("seal") Mormons with non-Mormons in temple ceremonies (it also doesn't allow non-Mormons or Mormons without a temple recommend to attend, or enter the temple).

kitty

02-15-2004, 08:17 PM

hmm... good point.

I guess I hadn't thought about them already doing it against people of different faiths.

Green_Circle

02-15-2004, 10:01 PM

No, it shouldn't be our objective to try to sway your opinion. My aim at least is not to change your mind on this issue because that prerogative is yours and yours alone. To follow a course contrary to that would be like me imposing my views on you without letting you think over it for yourself. After all, I'm not the one doing the thinking for you nor would I want to. You have the right to do whatever you'd like and vote on whatever position you see fit. My only aim is to show you that your way of thinking is flawed (in my eyes) and hope that you will use logic to demonstrate your points rather than relying on general statements alone to get a hazy, undefined position across.

If you can build a good argument on solid foundations, then I will respect you for it even if I do not agree with it myself (but not before challenging your views and forcing you to explain yourself until I am satisfied that you actually make sense, of course.) At the rate you're going, however, I don't see anything that's remotely logical and that is what I'm primarily interested in. As far as I'm concerned, this is a rather one sided debate at the moment (i.e. game set point to Emperor Mike.) Force me to think about your position by articulating your beliefs and reasoning into something I can read and say, "Yes, Green Circle has a point there."

I see. Reminds me of the U.S. in a couple of unpopular campaigns, they won the battle but lost the war.

kimpossible

02-16-2004, 08:01 AM

Open question to anyone hetero who feels legalizing gay marriage is a threat to marriage as an institution: can you explain specifically how and why? I'd like to ask anyone answering this to do so thoughtfully and without putdowns towards homosexuality. Candor and decently formatted paragraphs would be nice.

And I'd also like to ask everyone to be tolerant of whoever is brave enough to respond (don't automatically attack the response) as long as the response is still respectful.

Here's the reason I ask:

I am heterosexual and married. In no way do I feel that legislation to recognize same sex marriage is either a threat to my marriage or affects the meaning of my marriage. Please do not read that as a liberal notion, or tolerance. Same sex marriage simply does not evoke any fear in me, nor do I react to it as a threat to the meaning of my marriage.

My best analogy is... imagine someone asks you to taste something they found yucky. You try it and it's not something you'd think of ordering on your own but it's not unpalateable and you can't understand why the other person thought it was yucky.

rice cracker

02-16-2004, 10:57 AM

As far as the argument that gay marriage will change the foundation of society, I find that to be weak, and resistance to such change held by people don't believe humans could adapt to new social norms. You know, like women not being property was a new social norm that people had to adapt to. Minorities being able to vote was a new social norm. Child labor laws were a new social norm. Divorce being legalized was a new social norm. And on, and on, and on, and on.

I fail to see why gay marriage can't be a new social norm.

kitty

02-16-2004, 12:05 PM

I find the argument "because God said so" to be a weak argument.

rice cracker

02-16-2004, 12:08 PM

I find the argument "because God said so" to be a weak argument.

Mmm, yes, in a theocracy like ours the values of the state religion are always imposed on the entire country. :rolleyes:

Emperor_Mike

02-16-2004, 01:24 PM

I see. Reminds me of the U.S. in a couple of unpopular campaigns, they won the battle but lost the war.

Such as? Did the campaigns in question deal with the natural and legitimate extension of rights and liberties? Or are you referring to movements that deal with issues such as, let's say, an effort to legitimise the activities of NAMBLA and enshrine it in law? Do be specific.

Chester

02-16-2004, 01:27 PM

I fail to see why gay marriage can't be a new social norm.
And I fail to see why people can find it logically-feasible to break out weak slippery slope arguments that feature beastiality. I mean, why not just quick pussyfooting around within the same biological "Kingdom" and just extend the slippery slope to greater extremes, like..."If we allow gays to get married, what's next? People marrying single-celled protozoa!?!"

It's so simple: if someone believes that homosexuals should not be discriminated against and believes that the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, then one must believe in the right of homosexuals to be married.

Of course, there are those who believe, to varying degrees, that homosexuals are abominable sinners. Those people, to a great extent, seem to be beyond redemption...but they'll end up having to answer to their Maker, I suppose.

Green_Circle

02-16-2004, 05:07 PM

And I fail to see why people can find it logically-feasible to break out weak slippery slope arguments that feature beastiality. I mean, why not just quick pussyfooting around within the same biological "Kingdom" and just extend the slippery slope to greater extremes, like..."If we allow gays to get married, what's next? People marrying single-celled protozoa!?!"

It's so simple: if someone believes that homosexuals should not be discriminated against and believes that the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, then one must believe in the right of homosexuals to be married.

Of course, there are those who believe, to varying degrees, that homosexuals are abominable sinners. Those people, to a great extent, seem to be beyond redemption...but they'll end up having to answer to their Maker, I suppose.

Unfortunately, this is the crux of the matter. Too bad life can't be simple. So much gray area that the answers do not lie at the snap of a finger. You may be making some headway, or maybe not.
If you have passion for what you say, then by all means, continue. If it means nothing more to you than say, an academic debate, if you're not gay, if you're not married with kids or have young family members that could be affected and you really have no stake whatsoever, then continue to enjoy the armchair debate. :wink:

Kuchana

02-16-2004, 05:15 PM

They can refuse whoever they want. For instance, the LDS church does not marry ("seal") Mormons with non-Mormons in temple ceremonies (it also doesn't allow non-Mormons or Mormons without a temple recommend to attend, or enter the temple).

But that is part of the Mormon religion. If you're a member you can either marry in a civil union even with another member or in the temple if both of you are worthy to go to the temple. It is highly encouraged for the members then to marry others instead of outside the church so as to not deprive them of the blessings that you wouldn't have if you were married outside of the church.

How do you know of this? Not saying you're wrong but do you have a detailed knowledge of the Mormon religion? I ask this because I am one.

Chester

02-16-2004, 05:39 PM

Unfortunately, this is the crux of the matter. Too bad life can't be simple. So much gray area that the answers do not lie at the snap of a finger. You may be making some headway, or maybe not.
If you have passion for what you say, then by all means, continue. If it means nothing more to you than say, an academic debate, if you're not gay, if you're not married with kids or have young family members that could be affected and you really have no stake whatsoever, then continue to enjoy the armchair debate. :wink:
First of all, your ability to type paragraphs full of words but virtually no meaning continues to astound me. What are you trying to say? Did you grow up in some obscure tribe that avoided conclusive statements at all costs, in favor of meaningless vagueness? From what you write, you don't seem to actually have any position aside from seeming to disagree with others' positions. (And, to be snide, it's ironic how you seem to act as if you speak from a position of experience and authority when, in reality, you're seemingly incapable of typing out a coherent paragraph.)

Secondly, you don't know anything about my life and its circumstances. Don't make assumptions as to my sexuality, my marital status, whether or not I have kids or kids around me in life.

And...if you're going to bring up all these tangential issues, try taking a couple minutes of your time explaining how they're relevant. E.g. you need to actually explain how children will be affected by gay marriages instead of just vaguely insinuating that gay marriages will somehow, mysteriously harm children across America.

Third...one didn't need to be black, married, a parent, or an aunt/uncle to recognize that blacks deserved all the same civil rights that whites had. One need not be those things and/or homosexual to recognize that homosexuals deserve all the same civil rights that heterosexuals have.

One day, we're all going to look back and marvel at how stupid and unfair our society was at this point in history. We're going to be amazed at how much of a fuss gay marriage was, just as we look back now and find it hard to believe that black children were once not allowed to go to school with white children.

Some day, we'll look back at people who opposed civil rights for homosexuals just like we now look back at historical figures like Strom Thurmond and Bull Conner and we'll be amazed that masses of people actually agreed with them.

Emperor_Mike

02-16-2004, 05:59 PM

I am inclined to think that this matter will have greater ramifications than what the majority of the population is being led to believe. Fundamental issues of human rights are at stake here and I am inclined to think that the topic of homosexual marriages is but one facet of the social and legal challenges to the oft touted US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and, on an international scale, declarations such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. If society cannot bring itself to accept this current and controversial phase of social development how can we expect to be able to meet the problems of tomorrow?

As much as we'd all like to think that this is a localised affair and that it will not affect us, I view this challenge to what is essentially a right to enjoy one's freedom to pursue happiness as a grave indication and indeed one might even say a proving point of my belief that humanity will never truly better itself. There will always be closed minded elements of the population who will oppose a concept in principle even if they have no vested interest in the matter and whose liberties will not be manifestly altered in any degree. It is like an entire community condemning a fellow neighbour's choice of potted plant in her livingroom. I think it is ridiculous that individuals have so much time to devote to other people's business without tending to their own house keeping duties. In the end, I believe that the ills of society will continue to plague us all because there will always be a parental factor involved that will nurture social diseases like intolerance in their children who will perpetuate such negativity in generations to come.

In any case, my sympathies lie with the Pro-Gay Marriage folks. I applaud the city of San Francisco for its truly innovative stance and hope that champions of this cause will have the courage, will, and determination to meet the legal, social, and political challenges ahead. The people who fight for these causes are heroes and heroines in their own right, as any supporter for civil liberties and human rights ought to be. I can only hope that in time I, too, will be able to take my place in the ongoing effort to create more tolerant and understanding social climate for our progeny. Hats off to San Fran.

bluemonq

02-16-2004, 06:32 PM

What I find really funny (and excuse me for interrupting at this point with something that someone else may have posted already) is that THOUGH (please read all the way to the end of this before writing anything!!!) there is biblical support for considering homosexuality as a sin (see Leviticus [yes, the entire thing]), the portion of the bible in question includes a whole lot of other restrictions such as prohibitions on shaving/haircuts [19:27]; tattoos [19:28]; eating non-kosher foods, etc. -- and other requirements, such as the execution of people who take the lord's name in vain [24:16]; permits slavery [25:44]; and lots of other things. Now, if one were to pick and choose sections of the bible to believe in, i can sort of accept that, but i find it odd that people can decide to accept and reject particular sins.

EDIT: btw, don't people find it funny that it's mostly the republicans - the people who want *small* government - are the people who want the consitutional amendment defining marriage = man and women?

Green_Circle

02-16-2004, 06:41 PM

First of all, your ability to type paragraphs full of words but virtually no meaning continues to astound me. What are you trying to say? Did you grow up in some obscure tribe that avoided conclusive statements at all costs, in favor of meaningless vagueness? From what you write, you don't seem to actually have any position aside from seeming to disagree with others' positions. (And, to be snide, it's ironic how you seem to act as if you speak from a position of experience and authority when, in reality, you're seemingly incapable of typing out a coherent paragraph.)

Secondly, you don't know anything about my life and its circumstances. Don't make assumptions as to my sexuality, my marital status, whether or not I have kids or kids around me in life.

And...if you're going to bring up all these tangential issues, try taking a couple minutes of your time explaining how they're relevant. E.g. you need to actually explain how children will be affected by gay marriages instead of just vaguely insinuating that gay marriages will somehow, mysteriously harm children across America.

Third...one didn't need to be black, married, a parent, or an aunt/uncle to recognize that blacks deserved all the same civil rights that whites had. One need not be those things and/or homosexual to recognize that homosexuals deserve all the same civil rights that heterosexuals have.

One day, we're all going to look back and marvel at how stupid and unfair our society was at this point in history. We're going to be amazed at how much of a fuss gay marriage was, just as we look back now and find it hard to believe that black children were once not allowed to go to school with white children.

Some day, we'll look back at people who opposed civil rights for homosexuals just like we now look back at historical figures like Strom Thurmond and Bull Conner and we'll be amazed that masses of people actually agreed with them.

You're really gaining points.

bluemonq

02-16-2004, 06:59 PM

I shudder at bringing this up now, but what about polygamy?
there's one small difference between polygamy and same-sex marriages, though; it involves the legal system. if there was a gay/lesbian couple, and one of them died, the inheritance could automatically go to the survivor. but how would that work for polygamy? and with adoptions, would all of the spouses have to adopt the kid or what? and issues with the tax code...stuff like that. with same-sex marriages, it's still a *couple*, and many pieces of legislation could still work. with polygamy, there'd be some work necessary beforehand for everything to fit together, lest we end up with a spate of legal issues.

Chris

02-16-2004, 07:25 PM

PropellerheadCP

02-16-2004, 07:39 PM

It appears that Mr. Green_Circle is toying with certain members, in the so called debate.

kitty

02-16-2004, 09:09 PM

there's one small difference between polygamy and same-sex marriages, though; it involves the legal system. if there was a gay/lesbian couple, and one of them died, the inheritance could automatically go to the survivor. but how would that work for polygamy? and with adoptions, would all of the spouses have to adopt the kid or what? and issues with the tax code...stuff like that. with same-sex marriages, it's still a *couple*, and many pieces of legislation could still work. with polygamy, there'd be some work necessary beforehand for everything to fit together, lest we end up with a spate of legal issues.

While I realize that this may be more of a principal thing than anything else, I do believe polygamy should be recognized if all parties are consenting. It's not practical, but if you legally follow that every adult of legal age should benefit from certain basic rights (including the right to marry another consenting adult) then it follows that they should be able to marry many consenting adults.

However, whether or not churches will accept this and carry out the necessary religious ceremonies is another matter.

But, as EM said, this is an issue with endless ramifications to American society. Are we going to just pay lip service to civil rights? Or are we actually going to follow them to their logical ends, and ensure that every American is fair and equal, in the future? As much as I hate to say it, Green_Circle is right about one thing. This is an issue for our children... however I would like to say that I would rather have my children, should they end up being gay or straight, male or female, or whatever, be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as everyone else, and not have to tolerate the sort of inequities that makes life so hypocritically unequal for Americans today.

Green_Circle

02-16-2004, 09:21 PM

Fine Green Circle you want a gay man to speak up about this. Fine I will, I am backing up Chester on this. What you are have been saying is full of hot air, let me ask you this. How many gay people have you taken the time to know before you made all those assumptions?

I know gays. I live in San Fran by choice. But I've known gays long before I moved here. And although it may sound cliche-ish, one of my best friends was and is gay. I've partied with gays, gone clubbing, chilled, hung out and enjoyed the gay nite/club scene about as much as a hetero/poser can do without actually turning. So I'm just not spouting water like a sperm whale(no pun intended). So you's can rest assured that I'm no homophobe as I'm pretty sure I know gays much more than most of you sheltered peeps.(sorry)But that's all for now.

rice cracker

02-16-2004, 09:53 PM

Wow, Green Circle is like the Ras Farengi of gays.

AngryABCGirl

02-16-2004, 10:26 PM

I know gays. I live in San Fran by choice. But I've known gays long before I moved here. And although it may sound cliche-ish, one of my best friends was and is gay. I've partied with gays, gone clubbing, chilled, hung out and enjoyed the gay nite/club scene about as much as a hetero/poser can do without actually turning. So I'm just not spouting water like a sperm whale(no pun intended). So you's can rest assured that I'm no homophobe as I'm pretty sure I know gays much more than most of you sheltered peeps.(sorry)But that's all for now.

Just because a White man hates Asians doesn't mean he won't like fucking Asian woman just as you having supposedly having Gay friends doesn't mean you view them as lower than yourself. And just because you know a few Gay people doesn't mean you can speak for their experiences and existence. I doubt you would like it if one of your White friends decided he knew everything about being Asian and talked about it because you were his friend while he's clomping around the house with his shoes on, because that's essentially what you're doing here.

So far all you've done is made half-assed insinauationing and ignorant insults at various people and made yourself look stupider with your few lined posts while others have made eloquent statements and arguments in their support of Gays. I also really like how you assume so much about us and our experiences. Let me tell you one thing I've learned in my short lifetime, those with the least knowledge are often the ones who spout water like a sperm whale. People who have knowledge and experience didn't have to make vague comments and act as if they're superior and experienced.

Right now I'm convinced you're the one whose close-minded and sheltered because of your sheer inability to be coherent or to present an argument, as well as homophobic jerk. Prove me wrong and please present some form of presentable statement of why you think Gays should not be granted the same rights as Straights, and maybe I'll retract the previous statements I just made.

Green_Circle

02-16-2004, 11:28 PM

Ok now. I think you girls are unfairly riding me!

(not that that's a bad thing!)

:biggrin:

kuilong

02-17-2004, 12:05 AM

How do you know of this? Not saying you're wrong but do you have a detailed knowledge of the Mormon religion? I ask this because I am one.

I wouldn't say I have a detailed knowledge of the Mormon religion, and if I'm wrong please correct me. I've heard this through talking to many Mormons and reading about the religion. I don't know anything about the ordinances, because even though alleged transcripts of it are available from ex-Mormons and such, I feel it would be rude to try to find out about an aspect of the religion Mormons hold to be secret (not to mention ex-Mormons are hardly the most unbiased source out there). I also seem to recall a case where a man was forced to leave the Salt Lake City temple on tresspassing charges (he wasn't a saint, and attempted to enter). I understand (please correct me) that people can enter into a civil marriage that the church will recognize, but the church only seals (or indeed allows into a temple) people with temple recommends. In any case, it was just an example (maybe a bad one) of showing how private organizations can refuse to marry couples, regardless of whether they have the civil right to marry.

And I fail to see why people can find it logically-feasible to break out weak slippery slope arguments that feature beastiality. I mean, why not just quick pussyfooting around within the same biological "Kingdom" and just extend the slippery slope to greater extremes, like..."If we allow gays to get married, what's next? People marrying single-celled protozoa!?!"

Yeah, it was a bad example, and it wasn't meant to be a slippery slope argument. A better example would be polygamy, as I brought up later, and it's just meant to show that if a person accepts gay marriage but rejects polygamy based on the "equal rights" doctrine, their positions are logically inconsistent (of course, this is all in my opinion).

there's one small difference between polygamy and same-sex marriages, though; it involves the legal system. if there was a gay/lesbian couple, and one of them died, the inheritance could automatically go to the survivor. but how would that work for polygamy? and with adoptions, would all of the spouses have to adopt the kid or what? and issues with the tax code...stuff like that. with same-sex marriages, it's still a *couple*, and many pieces of legislation could still work. with polygamy, there'd be some work necessary beforehand for everything to fit together, lest we end up with a spate of legal issues.

No doubt. The example was just meant as a thought exercise, to see if you agree that the concept of polygame is moral or not, not whether it's actually feasible or practical.

Kuchana

02-17-2004, 12:24 AM

I wouldn't say I have a detailed knowledge of the Mormon religion, and if I'm wrong please correct me. I've heard this through talking to many Mormons and reading about the religion. I don't know anything about the ordinances, because even though alleged transcripts of it are available from ex-Mormons and such, I feel it would be rude to try to find out about an aspect of the religion Mormons hold to be secret (not to mention ex-Mormons are hardly the most unbiased source out there). I also seem to recall a case where a man was forced to leave the Salt Lake City temple on tresspassing charges (he wasn't a saint, and attempted to enter). I understand (please correct me) that people can enter into a civil marriage that the church will recognize, but the church only seals (or indeed allows into a temple) people with temple recommends. In any case, it was just an example (maybe a bad one) of showing how private organizations can refuse to marry couples, regardless of whether they have the civil right to marry.

Oh no you're not wrong at all. I was just surprised since you're the first non-member that I've seen who's posted about the temple marriage.
You are correct that the church does recognize a civil union but that only temple worthy individuals can be married and sealed in the temple. Not only that but the family members and the friends who attend the ceremony must have a temple recommend as well. In fact, my sister is getting married and sealed into the temple this April. No it wasn't bad at all to use that as an example.

Yeah, it was a bad example, and it wasn't meant to be a slippery slope argument. A better example would be polygamy, as I brought up later, and it's just meant to show that if a person accepts gay marriage but rejects polygamy based on the "equal rights" doctrine, their positions are logically inconsistent (of course, this is all in my opinion).

That makes me wonder if gay marriage is legitimized, then what is the likelihood that polygamy cannot be as well? I would think then that the definition of marriage would be meaningless would it not? No flames please. Just voicing a question. :smile:

Emperor_Mike

02-17-2004, 01:45 AM

As far as I'm concerned, the debate is over (not that there ever was one to being with.) How can you argue a point if the opposition can't come up with anything good?

rice cracker

02-17-2004, 07:23 AM

Ok now. I think you girls are unfairly riding me!

(not that that's a bad thing!)

:biggrin:

http://jupiter.walagata.com/w/kimkovach/dude.jpg

kitty

02-17-2004, 08:06 AM

That makes me wonder if gay marriage is legitimized, then what is the likelihood that polygamy cannot be as well? I would think then that the definition of marriage would be meaningless would it not? No flames please. Just voicing a question. :smile:

I really don't think the 'sanctity of marriage' should be considered threatened by these proposed re-definitions. What is marriage? A union between two people (traditionally a man and a woman) for the purpose of expressing their unambigous love for one another, creating the foundation of a household, and raising/rearing children... right?

To me, if there are two (or three) consenting adults who are willing to enter into these kinds of bonds and oaths, and are willing to dedicate their lives to one another, it shouldn't matter what gender they are. To me, this actually strengthens the sanctity of marriage, because it makes it more about the emotions and the oaths, than the genders of the people involved. To say that two straight people are more capable of these prerequisites for marriage are ludicrous ...

To me, if you want to talk about the 'sanctity of marriage', you should look at real threats, like people who get married just for the hell of it (*cough* *cough* Brittney Spears), people who marry for money, or because they got knocked up, or even why two straight people can live together and not feel the pressure to get married (i.e., what *is* so special about marriage? Does our society not emphasize the emotional aspects enough such that we have more instances of common-law husbands/wives, and live-in bfs/gfs?)

But then again, I *know* I'm not ready for marriage. I'm only 21. I feel like if a gay couple feels ready, they should go ahead and get married, because I know I'm not ready for that kind of step.

I know gays. I live in San Fran by choice. But I've known gays long before I moved here. And although it may sound cliche-ish, one of my best friends was and is gay. I've partied with gays, gone clubbing, chilled, hung out and enjoyed the gay nite/club scene about as much as a hetero/poser can do without actually turning. So I'm just not spouting water like a sperm whale(no pun intended). So you's can rest assured that I'm no homophobe as I'm pretty sure I know gays much more than most of you sheltered peeps.(sorry)But that's all for now.

The way you phrase this statement, you strike me as most definitely a closeted homophobe (and not a very well-closeted one, at that). In this statement, you talk about gay men and women almost like animals... derogatorily and condescendingly.

"I've partied with gays... I know gays." It's just sickening the way you refer to your gay 'friends'... although to me, they are either friends with you out of pity, or are on the 'self-hate' shit if they put up with you treating them and perceiving them in that manner. It's like you have mentally categorized them as having 'the gay'... as if they aren't even human, but members of this giant conglomeration of 'gay'.

Secondly, as has been reiterated before, having a few gay friends does not make your opinion right, nor have you still talked about why you believe gay marriage should not be legalized. Just because your best friend is gay, doesn't make you the spokesperson of gay advocacy, nor does it give you some insight on why gay marriage is wrong. Secondly, you cannot claim to know more about the gay community than anyone else... you apparently don't know it very well at all, and the thought that you are calling everyone else here 'sheltered' is ludicrous to the point of inanity.

More importantly, it does nothing to help bolster your failing argument. Now, your defense seems to be "I'm straight! I have children! And I know gay people!! I'm right, dammit!!" Sound idiotic to you?

You've posted over ten times in this thread, and each one has been nothing but a giant waste of space. What is preventing you from just outright defining your position?

Oh yes, 'cuz you don't actually know what it is.

Ok now. I think you girls are unfairly riding me!

(not that that's a bad thing!)

Wow, branching out into sexism as well as the usual homophobia?

Emperor_Mike

02-17-2004, 08:23 AM

...
That makes me wonder if gay marriage is legitimized, then what is the likelihood that polygamy cannot be as well? I would think then that the definition of marriage would be meaningless would it not? No flames please. Just voicing a question. :smile:

That is a good question, Kuchana - one worthy of a new topic too, I'd imagine. In any case I think with polygamy we're dealing with a separate issue. Gay marriages may be seen as a valid and just extension of the principles of human rights while polygamy could conceivably be viewed under a different lens. If we are to take the matter of polygamy in the traditional sense where a husband is said to be entitled to marry as many wives as he wants it could lend itself to "harem-isation" (term I just made up, by the way) which may be seen as the objectification of women and an affront to women's rights and social progress. It may be viewed in effect as the lessening of the status of one sex for the benefit of the other, notwithstanding the fact that this is something that takes place within the confines of a private residence. As stated before, with homosexual marriages the issue is broader and justifiable opposition would have to be founded on legitimate concerns and not simply on hazy principles alone.

kitty

02-17-2004, 08:47 AM

True, but polygamy does not necessarily have to be about one husband with many wives. It could be the other way around...

Emperor_Mike

02-17-2004, 09:12 AM

True, but polygamy does not necessarily have to be about one husband with many wives. It could be the other way around...

Yes, which is why I said if we were to view polygamy in the "traditional" sense of one husband and many wives.

Even if we consider the other alternative (i.e. one wife, many husbands) it's still in effect changing the parity of the sexes which really does no one any favours by promoting inequality in its sundry forms.

kitty

02-17-2004, 09:18 AM

kuilong

02-17-2004, 10:37 AM

One husband with many wives has its own term: "polygyny" (there's also "polyandry"). And that's not all, if you want to see some really creative marriages see Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

[Edit: Oh, and it doesn't have to be either one wife and many husbands or one husbands and many wives as you guys have discussed so far, it could very well be many wives and many husbands]

Green_Circle

02-17-2004, 12:13 PM

http://jupiter.walagata.com/w/kimkovach/dude.jpg

Ok then. Take me to do with as you will!

:biggrin:

rice cracker

02-17-2004, 02:00 PM

Ok then. Take me to do with as you will!

:biggrin:

I'd rather drink. Alone.

AngryABCGirl

02-17-2004, 07:26 PM

Green_Circle

02-17-2004, 07:38 PM

I'd rather drink. Alone.

What are you drinking? Root beers? :tongue:

Emperor_Mike

02-18-2004, 06:26 AM

oh, i'm sorry, i missed the 'in the traditional sense' bit.

though perhaps i'm just missing something, but would it really promote inequality if all parties involved in the polygamous relationship are consenting and have learned to make it work? also, if they are given the alternative to enter into a monogamous marriage?

Hmmm...you have good points! However, if we are to assume for the sake of the debate that there is no inequality, I think the difficulties then would be less human rights related and more emphasis would be placed on social concerns and perceptions.

Chester

02-18-2004, 11:00 AM

Yeah, it was a bad example, and it wasn't meant to be a slippery slope argument. A better example would be polygamy, as I brought up later, and it's just meant to show that if a person accepts gay marriage but rejects polygamy based on the "equal rights" doctrine, their positions are logically inconsistent (of course, this is all in my opinion).
I haven't really thought too much about polygamous marriages and I agree that what is done about gay marriages will affect whatever may end up being done (or not) about polygamous marriages.

Nonetheless, we were talking about gay marriage and marriage between a couple of the same-sex cannot be invalidated by bringing up the topic of polygamous marriages -- if it's to be invalidated, it must be invalidated on its own merits.

pfc beansprout

02-18-2004, 11:14 AM

lil update on dubya duh-duh.......

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-18-bush-marriage_x.htm

President 'troubled' by San Francisco's gay marriages

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush said Wednesday he was "troubled" by gay weddings in San Francisco and by legal decisions in Massachusetts that could clear the way for same-sex marriage. But he declined to say whether he is any closer to backing a constitutional ban on such vows.
"I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise," Bush said. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are influencing my decision."

"I am watching very carefully, but I am troubled by what I've seen," Bush said. (Related video: Bush speaks on gay marriages)

He didn't answer directly when asked whether he is any closer to endorsing a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, as conservative groups say the White House has assured them Bush will do.

"I strongly believe marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman," Bush said during an Oval Office session with Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. "I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage."

"People need to be involved in this decision," Bush said. "Marriage ought to be defined by the people not by the courts. And I'm watching it carefully."

Gay and lesbian couples from Europe and more than 20 states have lined up outside the ornate San Francisco City Hall since city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples six days ago. City officials said 172 couples were married Tuesday, a pace that would bring the total number who have taken vows promising to be "spouses for life" to over 3,000 by Friday.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Under the decision, the nation's first legally sanctioned gay marriages are scheduled to begin in mid-May.

Lawmakers are proposing a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and the Legislature resumes its deliberations of amendments on March 11.