THE SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE

[sologdin]

[i]As for appliances - as long as the vacuum cleaner's of the opposite sex, can produce baby vacuum cleaners with you, and says "I do", I don't mind.[/i]

i don't get the focus on natalism--as though we were running out of snotty infants.

it's almost like the natalist obsession were concocted solely to place an unsurmountable obstacle in front of homosexuals.

[ldygrffn]

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3564893.stm"]this[/url] seems to be to be the only fair treatment for human rights in our current situation here in the U.S.

and why does all the good, relevant stuff have to happen while i am gone? :angry: (i refer to vacuum cleaners and suckitude)

[Piper]

[quote name='AndyP' post='1747369' date='Apr 6 2009, 19.14']If you follow the current logic of the court, they didn't define new rights. They simple allowed that existing rights covered new circumstance.[/quote]

In a practicable sense, this is a tom[i]a[/i]to, tom[i]ah[/i]to. Before [i]Roe[/i], Texas could ban first term abortions outright. After, they couldn't, because the right was - pick your term here, created, recognized, extended, etc, the point is the right was now protecting people. The protection of the right was because of judicial action, not legislation and plebiscite.

Besides, one could make the argument that gay marriage bans violate equal protection, not some right found in substantive due process or as part of the privacy found in the penumbra of other rights.


[quote name='AndyP' post='1747386' date='Apr 6 2009, 19.30']Because most of our rights are defined by constitutional amendment, would you really want to establish a precedent of the courts tossing out amendments that they don't like just so you can win on one issue. Once you establish the right of the courts to negate amendment the the horse is out of the barn.[/quote]

I think the issue here was state amendments, not Federal, constitutional ones. The Supreme Court can invalidate an amendment to a state constitution like they can any state law. No one here is arguing the Court can quash amendments to the federal constitution.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1745041' date='Apr 4 2009, 19.44']Obviously (and sadly) many children are now being brought up in such manner.[/quote]

Why is this sad? My friends (who were recently married in Canada) have been together for 16 years. They have a very well adjusted and wonderful son; a daughter who is musically gifted, into sports. Both get good grades and like I said are great kids. How is this sad?

They are the greatest moms around. Neither the son or daughter are gay, or even bi.

[Ormond]

[quote name='Fatuous' post='1747299' date='Apr 6 2009, 17.02']Negative. Criminalization of Gay Marriage has been done by popular vote yet legalization has been done through Court Decisions.[/quote]

I think we need to be a little more careful in our language. Gay marriage has not been "criminalized" anywhere in the USA. You can't be arrested for participating in a gay marriage or sent to jail for it. It's just that the marriage will not be legally recognized. But "not legally valid" is a far cry from being "criminal".

[Ormond]

[quote name='Lany Cassandra' post='1747585' date='Apr 6 2009, 21.24']They are the greatest moms around. Neither the son or daughter are gay, or even bi.[/quote]

I know you didn't really mean to imply this, but if their kids WERE gay or bisexual, that would not negate their being "the greatest moms around."

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

[quote name='Ormond' post='1747594' date='Apr 6 2009, 22.29']I know you didn't really mean to imply this, but if their kids WERE gay or bisexual, that would not negate their being "the greatest moms around."[/quote]

No. :lol: I am drugged up and sick. It seemed one of the concerns was that gay parents would raise gay kids and there is nothing to substaniate that.

I am straight and I raised a bi-sexual son. I was trying to say that the parents' orientation made no difference.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

I think Ormond was trying to say even if it did make a difference it wouldn't matter. Sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth Ormond, that's just what i got from your post.

[Galactus]

Mind, I think there ARE arguments against recognizing homosexual marriage that are, at least not entirely *silly*. But they kind of do require you to abandon the entire idea of liberal democracy in the strict sense in favor of a different kind of view of society. And would (if you follow that logic) also make neccessary a whole bunch of changes I don't think the opponents of gay marriage would consider.

Basically, it's the hippocriscy that bothers me: Everything should be run by liberal principles EXCEPT for marriage, which is just odd. If you take a more consistent conservative stance it becomes a whole lot less jarring. (although that kind of society really isn't one I'd like to live in)

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Galactus' post='1747816' date='Apr 7 2009, 02.44']Basically, it's the hippocriscy that bothers me: Everything should be run by liberal principles EXCEPT for marriage, which is just odd. If you take a more consistent conservative stance it becomes a whole lot less jarring. (although that kind of society really isn't one I'd like to live in)[/quote]A planet where apes evolved from humans? Preposterous!

[Warg Arry]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1746905' date='Apr 6 2009, 11.45'][b]Twu Wuv[/b]: This is only reserved for me and my wife, so fuck y'all. In the unlikely event that you want to actually apply for this, you must become a pirate, find and slay R.O.U.S and beat a Sicilian when death is on the line.[/quote]

[i]Why didn't you wait for me?[/i]

[i]Well..You were dead.[/i]

[i]Death can not stop true love, all it can do is delay it for a while.[/i]

[i]I will never doubt again.[/i]


And in the immortal words of Homer Simpson

[i]When I die I want to be stuffed and mounted on the couch, as a constant reminder of our marital vows.[/i]

Ah, Twu Wuv does beat them all

[Lord Mord]

I really do wish that the anti- crowd didn't always run with their tail between their legs when the topic gets tough.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

I dunno, I like how light hearted it gets once they leave. Not to mention how many ways can you say "it's icky"? I'm sure there are plenty but they don't seem to be creative enough to rephrase it over and over. Not to mention asking a homophobe to keep religion out of their argument is like asking a jihadist to..... keep religion out of their argument.

[Inigima]

They have to, they have no arguments.

[Ormond]

If you all really want to continue this thread, you could always discuss the TV ads being aired by the "National Organization for Marriage."

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI261VU0AZA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI261VU0AZA[/url]

[Greywolf2375]

[quote name='GdMisfits' post='1750370' date='Apr 9 2009, 08.48']I dunno, I like how light hearted it gets once they leave. Not to mention how many ways can you say "it's icky"? I'm sure there are plenty but they don't seem to be creative enough to rephrase it over and over. Not to mention asking a homophobe to keep religion out of their argument is like asking a jihadist to..... keep religion out of their argument.[/quote]
There's plenty of ways - even a theme song (to the tune of The Addams Family):

It's creepy and it's kinky,
Icky and it's spooky,
They're all together ooky,
Those Who Do it Anal-ly

Their house is a blaspheme
To Them Brad Pitts a pipedream
They really are an insult
To The Normal Famil-y.

Disclaimer: The above is intended to be in the theme of lighthearted, funny and prove why I never went into song writing. No animals or religions were harmed in the creation of this ditty.

[TerraPrime]

[quote name='Greywolf2375' post='1750463' date='Apr 9 2009, 09.42']They really are an insult
To The Normal Famil-y.[/quote]


Only when they have poor-taste in home decor. Honestly, a wall-mounted singing bass in the entry way? That's worthy of insult in my book.