Comment by nanlichi

No.

Preserve Marriage
~ Outlaw divorce!

Why does the right to life end at birth?

… Huck-a-Chuckabee, the former Baptist Preacher turned Governor, argues over who sent more to their death.

.

You guys didn’t think I was serious did you? It is a measure of just how frigging far out there the right wing religious freaks are that I can’t outdo them even in satire.

I have said many times I think a person’s sexual orientation is about as important as their hair color. We don’t prohibit redheads from marrying blondes do we? Makes as much sense as prohibiting same sex marriage as far as I am concerned.

I like to poke fun at the sanctimonious pious pricks like bitethebullet who post here.

Yes, I’ve heard this aruement from right-wing, Republican, closeted, homophobes before. My question is, “Do unmarried same sex couples produce more offspring than do married same sex couples?”

Nope, He made Adam and Eve. Who was it their children married? I thought marriage to your own brothers & sisters was considered wrong. . . . ;-)

“And two, I suspect the real reason is because when you are trying to maintain a power structure that’s shaped like a pyramid with all money and power flowing to the top, you have to keep spreading the base, like Amway. Same sex marriages don’t produce offspring, so the pyramid stops growing.” Comment by nanlichi — January 17, 2008 @ 11:01 am

So, there shold be a law against infertal couples from being married? Or couples who don’t plan on having children should be disallowed?

I know you’re only bringing up the arguments of the Religious Wrong, but I felt I had to respond to the inherent lack of logic in those statements.

Wow! Scandinavia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Netherlands and Belgium must be super-powerful! ;-)

By the way, still waiting for your reasons on how same-sex marriage negatively impacts heterosexuial marriage.

If one is to use Levitican rules to govern the country, one must go all the way. You know, kill people for wearing clothes of two different fabrics, eating shellfish, working on the Sabbath, etc.

And if marriage is exclusively for procreation purposes, then be willing to enforce that rule. Send the army in and force people to have babies, and force couples without kids to divorce. And I’m talking about YOU, Bob and Liddy Dole.

Marriage historically has always been a merger of interests between two families. It has evolved, thanks to rational humanism, into two adults agreeing to take care of each other through thick and thin. And in such a rational context, there is NO reason to deny same-sex couples the rights, responsibilities and privileges of marriage.

If marriage were truly left up to the states, interracial marriage would STILL be illegal in much of the US. After all, in 1967 (the year of Lovings vs. Virginia), 70% of US citizens were AGAINST legalizing interracial marriage. Being from the South, I know for a fact that many states in that region would still outlaw it. Just one of the many reasons I won’t ever go back.

You are failing Logic 101. Under the American principles the assumption is that activities are allowed unless deemed substantially harmful. Evidence of harm must be presented. Same-sex marriage opponents continue to fail to provide any such evidence.

You provide only religion-based reasons for opposition. Those reasons should be summarily dismissed as theocratic in nature. The USA is not a theocracy. Only secular reasons should be considered. Anything else is un-American.

Society is rapidly coming to accept the concept of same-sex marriage. Regardless, such emotional acceptance should be irrelevant to its legal standing in absence of demonstrable harm.

The cost of Roe at 35

.
.
.
Roe and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, took the question of endowment of life by “our Creator” and placed it in the hands of individuals. History has shown what happens when humanity seizes such power for itself: political dictatorships, eugenics and scientific experiments unrestrained by any moorings to a moral code. Each becomes her and his own god; each becomes a taker of life, rather than a giver, inverting the creation model into one of destruction and transforming the pregnant woman from life-giver to life-taker.
.
.
.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas011708.php3

Comment by bitblt

Talk about the ultimate strawman! Who ever said government should “make same sex marriages happen”? No one is going to force people of the same sex to get married you fool. Also, no one is going to force any church to perform same sex marriages.

By making same sex marriage illegal, the government is inturding not only upon individual rights, but religious freedom as well.

I take it that forbidding same-same gender marriage and making it happen are different actions. That is, this additional conclusion applies: Therefore, government has no power to bring about same-sex marriage.

A relationship between a man and a woman that is recognized as a marriage, is a marriage. Just as government doesn’t give a man and a woman permission to marry – the government keeps records and encourages health practices – the government can’t give two same-same gender people permission to marry. Only those relationships that are recognized as marriage will be marriages.

This relationship called marriage is older than government, and it’s older than religion. The Bible records that God created marriage in the book of Genesis. This would be before either religious or government recognition of marriage.

Christ quotes from this account in Matthew 19 where he explains the Creator’s intent: a man and a woman will be one flesh. Two same-same gender people cannot be one flesh. Therefore, they cannot be married.
It is this “one flesh” relationship that is recognized as marriage.

There’s not a government on earth powerful enough to make people accept that two same-same gender people are married.

Constitutional amendments should not and cannot be used to deny, limit or disparage the rights of the people. They are, instead, the devices used by the people the limit the power of government.

The Supreme Court has declared, in Loving v. Virginia, that marriage is a “fundamental right.” The people have commanded that every person in America is entitled to “equal protection of the law.” Therefore, government has no power to forbid same-sex marriage.

Remember, if government did have the power to say whom you cannot marry, it must therefore have the power to say whom you must marry.

Comment by nanlichi

Marriages by elderly couples don’t produce offspring either. Old people should not be allowed to marry.

One, God didn’t make Adam and Steve did he?

And two, I suspect the real reason is because when you are trying to maintain a power structure that’s shaped like a pyramid with all money and power flowing to the top, you have to keep spreading the base, like Amway. Same sex marriages don’t produce offspring, so the pyramid stops growing.

Same reason the freaks fight birth control.

Great point! Not one single argument by the anti-same-sex marriage crowd holds any water.

Benefits:
1 – Encourage lasting and committed relationships. When a relationship is recognized by the state, it makes it more of a lasting committment than a “short term fling,” AND you’ve just taken a step towards discouraging sexual liasons for the sake of sex. Isn’t that a major compalint by straight people about same-sex relationships? Always jumping from one person to the next! Don’t you want to encourage lasting relationships?

2 – Legal recognition. I had to get a will written up that provided for power of attorney and power of medical decisions. This would not be mandatory in the case of legalized marriages.

3 – Less legal ambiguity. My partner and I have been together for almost 8 years. Longer than many straight marriages last! When we apply for an apartment, it’s two separate applications rather than the one application that married couples wouold have to submit.

4 – Reduced inheritance ambiguity. Married couples have the expectation of inheriting when their partner dies. Same sex marriage would provide less ambiguity in the case of a partners demise.

These are all rational advantages of same-sex marriage. Can anyone successfully refute any of these assertions? Can anyone supply rational arguments against same-sex marriage?

Comment by BillJ-MN

That’s because they are too embarrassed to actually say what they are worried about. They are afraid it will harm their marriages. Obviously, the temptation to leave their spouses for a partner of the same sex would become overpowering for them if same sex marriage were to become legal.