Amazon.com Widgets

« Health Care Reform Revival | Main | The Blogs Must be Crazy »

New Law Would Ban Marriages Between People Who Don't Love Each Other


(tip to Jamie)

 

Comments

i saw this a couple of days ago, but it's worth a second view- absolutely hysterical, and an excellent political point as well.

it seems we're moving into an era where political/philosophical points are best made and understood through humor and snark. i'm 100% for it, i feel like i've been waiting for this my whole life. stewart for prez, etc.

Those unloving people are destroying my chances for marital bliss!

Actually, if gay marriage is legalized, who's to stop friends from getting married just for government benefits? And if gender doesn't matter, why does number of participants matter? Who is to say that the love of two gay men is more real that the love between a man and 5 women? Or what if a father and his son are in love? Can you stop a father from marrying his son, and if so, why, if they love each other?

Fathers and sons already have a relationship that affects their taxable status - a dumb example. Nice try though. As for friends getting married, that is something that I'm sure happens quite frequently between males and females. Indeed, I attended the wedding of such a couple less than a year ago. (BTW, given the advanced age and health status of the couple, I doubt there is much if any sex going on - not that it matters.) People get married for all kinds of reasons. As for polygamy - as long as adults are consenting, I couldn't care less. Nevertheless, there is no reason to extend government recognition to more than one spouse per person - everyone is treated the same.

Actually, if gay marriage is legalized, who's to stop friends from getting married just for government benefits?

facepalm

Friends, in fact, anyone, can get married for government benefits, greencards, practically any reason at all. Gay marriage won't alter this any more...it's already happening. Wake up!

Get real. We're talking about marriage benefits for father and son. Do you really think that should be acceptable? The fact of the matter is that marriage has always been about more than just love. It has served multiple purposes, like the establishment of paternity, the passing on of inheritance, and the establishment of a family unit. Gays cannot have a family without going outside of their union. It's a simple fact of biology, and before you point to infertile couples, keep in mind that this is a medical issue, one that can often be corrected with various procedures. The inability of gays to have children is a fact of human biology. Face it, homosexuality is a biological abnormality and human society shouldn't be redefined because of it. If blood relation, gender, number of spouses, etc. do not matter to you, then why even have marriage at all? There are seriously people out there who would marry their dogs and sex dolls if they could? Is consent the only requirement for marriage?

Red herrings everywhere you look - dogs, sex dolls, incest - what utter diversionary bullshit. I never said that incest was OK for marriage, only that it is a bullshit divesrion from the issue of gay marriage. It is an equal protection issue - neither homo- nor heterosexual parents may marry their children. "Gays cannot have a family without going outside of their union." - Big deal - are you going to require that heterosexual couples must try to have children? Are marriages to be banned for post-menopausal women? You're plowing old ground on this blog. Go read it - it's too boring to do it again.

But to the question, "why even have marriage at all?" my answer is that if legal precedent could be undone, I'd just as soon it were that all marriages were civil unions as far as the state is concerned, and the "sanctified" part be left to religious institutions. Unfortunately, historical entanglement of marriage with the state makes that option pretty much impossible.

I concur.

There are people who actually want to do those things, based on their feelings, which is what arguments for gay marriage are based upon. Incestual marriage may be a "bullshit diversion" in your head, but there are people who would do it if legalized, as well as the other things mentioned. You're whole thing about equal protection, neither homo nor heterosexual parents may marry their children, why is that? Just because it's against the law? Laws can be changed, which is what you'd like to see in the case of gay marriage. You never answered my question; if gender doesn't matter, why does blood relaton or number of particiants matter?

Also, heteroexual couples have the choice to have a family, delay having one until later in life, or not to have one at all. It's still a CHOICE. Gay couples cannot have children, period. Heterosexual procreation is the sole method of the continuance of the human species, and that fact alone is it is the basis for marriage. Emotions and feel good arguments cannot change this fact.

You mentioned that you'd rather all marraiges be civil unions. What is the reasoning for the government recognizing a gay marriage at all? They can't have a family, so they have no need for family assisting government benefits, there is no paternal and materal lineage to keep track of through birth records, so what is it? All it is trying to force everyone else to look at them as normal. Homosexuals have a developmental abnormality, period, so we shouldn't deny the obvious. If they want to visit each other in the hospital, fine. If they want to leave inheritance to each other, fine. No need for marriage in those cases. But don't try to redefine human society to appease a small minority.

So that's why pretty much all biologists, especially evolutionary biologists, say gays don't have any biological problem? Are all your "biological" facts the reason why the scientific community, and people in general, as scientific literacy and education go up, consider that gays don't have a problem at all and are not abnormal?

Is gays being unnatural why there are so many other species of animals that exhibit both homosexuality and bisexuality? Are all those animals "unnatural" as well?

Where do you get your science facts?

But that's beside the point. Even if they were unnatural, which they AREN'T, why be such a dick and deny them the same rights that heterosexuals (who can have actual antisocial abnormalities) have?

um, we got a live one?

I'm a bit tired right now. Becker, you take this one grasshopper.

i thought tim was doing pretty good. i also find your scientific point about gay humans/animals "not having a problem" a little strange- and you call yourself a darwinist!

still, i find our friends concerns about "bloodlines" and "redefining society" a bit creepy. i also think it would be (at least) good form for him/her to check tim's link, which he/she apparently hasn't done. plowing old ground indeed.

my joke position is that if heteros are forced to undergo the indignities and miseries and restrictions of marriage, than gays should be forced to suffer too.

my real position is as tim stated:

I'd just as soon it were that all marriages were civil unions as far as the state is concerned, and the "sanctified" part be left to religious institutions.

i disagree with tim about the difficulties of arrangeing things this way, it's just a matter of good will. oh....

marriage has morphed from religious legislation designed to protect the weaker party in what is essentially a property transferral (of a daughter, from her father to her husband) to a matter of social acceptance. in this ryuhayabusa has his/her eye on the ball, it's just an uncomfortably grudging eye which, for better or worse, accurately reflects the views of a probably very, very large percentage of humanity. if "majority opinion" means anything anymore in a democracy, these views must be respected on that basis alone.

if it's really about social acceptance, and we really want to be all "progressive" about it, maybe everybody should just marry everybody and we'll all live together in a big dirty hippie commune. :)

i personally find it amazing that anyone would fight for the "right" to get married, or join the army. i see these things as unpleasant necessities. i'd like to see a world where armies and the protection of human "property" are unneccesary.

and the more i talk the stupider i sound. you know this, andyo, that's why you goad me.

if "majority opinion" means anything anymore in a democracy, these views must be respected on that basis alone.

Oh? So human rights are now subject to majority opinions? Weren't you the one arguing a while ago that most humans were ignorant, violent dicks? (I may have added the "ignorant" part, but I think you would concur.)

So human rights are now subject to majority opinions?

in a democracy, unfortunately, yes, absolutely. it doesn't mean that the minority don't have a voice, however, that's what free speech is about and it's an equally important part of (modern) democracy. hearts and minds, hearts and minds. the subject of general "human rights" totally goes against the laws of science and evolution. it was actually invented by religious people, and now we're just hashing out the details. and arguing against reactionary religious people and status-quo "i got mine" conservatives. like our friend here.

almost forgot my job.

the torah provides a number of socially acceptable (by defenition) frameworks that allow temporary and mutually advantageous sexual unions without the "sanctity" and "permanency" of true marriage. but under pressure from their host societies, especially the christians, the rabbi's have suppressed and even forbidden these frameworks for a number of reasons having to with acceptance and getting along. kind of like how the mormans gave up on polygamy once they figured out what country they were living in.

i think the "old ways" are often much smarter and more practical than the new ones, and much more savvy about human nature. unfortunately most people are ignorant of history/anthropology, and humans are notoriously difficult to fit between the slide and the cover slip.

the torah provides a number of socially acceptable (by defenition) frameworks that allow temporary and mutually advantageous sexual unions without the "sanctity" and "permanency" of true marriage.

Like raping the young women you claim after you exterminate a neighboring tribe?

nah, those you have to marry. which, at the time at least, was considered a dis-incentive to rape.

Only rape them if they are nice and can cook. It's the old testament way.

i certainly don't advocate rape, and neither does the old testament. it's attitude of " you break it, you pay for it" may be outmoded but forms the basis of modern laws that intend to protect women (and are still far from perfect). wise guy.

I should know this, but I can't remember. Are you, or have you ever been married Red?

No rings in my present or past, Sygnas.

You never answered my question; if gender doesn't matter, why does blood relaton or number of particiants matter?

It shouldn't matter. So long as the child in question is able to give "informed consent" upon crossing the age of consent then they should be able to marry. Your slippery slope is intended to appeal to shock and horror but you do nothing to present actual problems deriving from same-sex marriage other than these bogus appeals.

Heterosexual procreation is the sole method of the continuance of the human species, and that fact alone is it is the basis for marriage.

Which is why we don't allow infertile, sterile, or impotent couples from marrying right? Or heterosexual couples who decide early not never to have kids right? Or preclude old folks from wedding right? Continuance of the human species involves intercourse, which do not necessitate some ceremonial union regulated by government or parish. This is more paranoia from your appeals to shock: the insinuation that if we allow this the slippery slope will be that it will encourage others to be homosexual. This view is the most asinine of them all.

They can't have a family

You've never seen or heard of a gay or lesbian couple who adopts children? Rosie O'Donnell ring a bell?

All it is trying to force everyone else to look at them as normal.

Oh yes, the victim card. Poor little ol' you is being subjected to the horrid agendas of equality. Those damn black people and their civil rights being shoved down the throats of everybody! No, the truth is you're more than welcome to view homosexuals as a neo-nazi views a jew. The recognition is made by the government. You're irrelevant to the picture.

Homosexuals have a developmental abnormality, period, so we shouldn't deny the obvious.

And your source for this is? Why am I even asking you if I already know you're full of crap.

The guy hit all the conservative talking points in record time. I wonder if the "debate" ever moves forward from here. They spouting all that bullshit and somebody stating the obvious. Then they go on repeating the same after a while and it goes on and on...

...Oh yes, the victim card. Poor little ol' you is being subjected to the horrid agendas of equality. Those damn black people and their civil rights being shoved down the throats of everybody!...

Oh yeah, you should talk - where's your compassion for bigots?

Face it, homosexuality is a biological abnormality and human society shouldn't be redefined because of it. If blood relation, gender, number of spouses, etc. do not matter to you, then why even have marriage at all? There are seriously people out there who would marry their dogs and sex dolls if they could? Is consent the only requirement for marriage?

Oh boy, sorry I missed this bigotry the other day.

Perhaps Homosexuality isn't "normal" but it does seem to be biological, and no society doesn't need to be redefined, its just the laws that need to be adjusted so as not to try to supress a natural occurance. There is no realon two loving adults shouldn't be able to join in an emotional and financial union.

My guess is that if folks want to give power of attorney to their love doll, that is their funeral.

I think you miss the point though the gov, shouldn't be regulating sex, love, or the word marriage. THey should allow for adults to be financial, legal, and parental partners in a clear and simple way.

If they have sex, its only the governments role to prosecute abuse. If a father wants to have a non sexual civil union with his son, none of my business. Some types of marriage are banned because of likelyhood of abuse and social norms, I am one to say that the abuse should be routed out and the relationships should be no business of the government.

Geez, where to begin. I didn't bring up marriages involving incest, beastiality, dolls, and polygamy strictly for shock value. The fact of the matter is that if the long standing standard of male-female marriage is changed, every group, however depraved their idea of marriage may be, will have the door opened for them. There are more people that you might imagine who would want an "alternative" marriage, and if you argue that gender doesn't matter, then number of participants, blood relation, etc. doesn't matter. You get to point where it's like, why even have marriage to begin? Strictly for government benefits? You can love someone or something without having the government and the whole of society accept and acknowledge it. Erick, you obviously missed where I pointed out that infertility is a MEDICAL issue, not complete biological incompatibility as in the case of ALL homosexuals. Also, adoption was never meant to be child depot for gay couples. Yes, there are many children that go unadopted, but this is in large part due to an over-priced, failing system with too much red tape and politics involved. Third, homosexuality is a developmental abnormality, with loads of scientific proof that it occurs, at least in part, due to fetal hormonal exposure abnormalities in the womb. Reaction to male-female pheremones as well as abnormal hypothalamuses are further evidence of abnormalities. It may not be politically correct to say it, but it's a fact. Lastly, as pointed out, heterosexual procreation is the basis for human survival, and male-female relationships have always been the core of human society in every culture for all of our history. Trying to change that fact and construct a system which flies in the face of mammalian biology, and providing a way to for them to obtain children from heterosexual couples to replace their own natural inability to have children is, quite frankly, twisted. The very fact that they long to have children, but cannot due to their sexual preference, should be a clear demonstration that something isn't right. But, liberals thing all change is good change. Just like liberals will stand by and let Muslims take over in Western Europe and destroy their heritage and way of life. However, if you speak out against what is going on, they will fight to the death to protect the rights of those who would destroy them. Keep in mind that I'm an atheist who rejects the Bible, Quran, and every other "holy" text. I hate the fact that I'm lumped in with liberals just because I'm an atheist.

Third, homosexuality is a developmental abnormality, with loads of scientific proof that it occurs, at least in part, due to fetal hormonal exposure abnormalities in the womb. Reaction to male-female pheremones as well as abnormal hypothalamuses are further evidence of abnormalities. It may not be politically correct to say it, but it's a fact.

You're funny! Unless you believe this crap. it's a fact. Really? Cough up a scientific source.

You are most definitely not a liberal; however, I'm surprised that an atheist would spout all of these fundamentalist lines. It's funny, a (wo)man named average used to pull rhetorical strings like this: "I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but [insert neo-con talking point here]."

Somebody doesn't believe in paragraphs. I wonder if this is not another of those "I'm an atheist too!" religious peeps. Hard to believe someone stating scientific "facts" with as much authority as those statements are wrong has to have some faith.

By your views "ryuhayabusa", one should expect biologists to be the ones most against it. Would you care to explain why this is just the opposite, especially atheist (like you!) biologists?

Hmmm

The fact of the matter is that if the long standing standard of male-female marriage is changed, every group, however depraved their idea of marriage may be, will have the door opened for them.

Highly speculative.

There are more people that you might imagine who would want an "alternative" marriage, and if you argue that gender doesn't matter, then number of participants, blood relation, etc. doesn't matter.

Alright. And?

You get to point where it's like, why even have marriage to begin?

If you were getting married simply to be part of some private club rather than because you wanted to solidify a bond between your mate, then you’ve got your priorities all jumbled up.

Strictly for government benefits?

I highly doubt most same-sex couples are getting married "strictly for government benefits." I’m sure they view marriage in exactly the same way heterosexual couples do.

You can love someone or something without having the government and the whole of society accept and acknowledge it.

Sure, but since the government decided to be in the business of marriage, then it has to be administered equally.

Erick, you obviously missed where I pointed out that infertility is a MEDICAL issue, not complete biological incompatibility as in the case of ALL homosexuals.

What on earth is “biological incompatibility?” Homosexuality is biological. We have identified regions of human DNA which attest to this fact.

Identification of regions of human DNA that contain genes which can cause homosexuality: A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation.

From PubMed

Also, adoption was never meant to be child depot for gay couples.

Allowing gays to adopt doesn’t transform it into a “depot.” You’re being ridiculous with your charged words. Using your language I can make anything sound bad: “These blacks are pushing their agenda of equality in the schools! Schools weren’t designed to be a breeding ground for dark acceptibility. What would stop our white little girls from entering into a corrupt relationship with a black man?! Were you aware that African-American men constitute more than 47% of the prison population but are only 12% of the general population?" And on and on…

There. Have I made an effective case for blackness being “wrong?” Of course not. You’re being moronic.

You're doing this if you haven't noticed.

Yes, there are many children that go unadopted, but this is in large part due to an over-priced, failing system with too much red tape and politics involved.

You’ve entirely missed the point of why this was brought up. You made the unfounded claim that there are no such things as “gay families” and I brought up the fact that many gay couples do, in fact, adopt children and that this constitutes a family. That this boils your blood is irrelevant to the issue.

Third, homosexuality is a developmental abnormality, with loads of scientific proof that it occurs, at least in part, due to fetal hormonal exposure abnormalities in the womb. Reaction to male-female pheremones as well as abnormal hypothalamuses are further evidence of abnormalitie.s It may not be politically correct to say it, but it's a fact.

If by abnormal you simply mean “that which deviates from the norm” then homosexuals are as abnormal as redheads. Of course we all know by abnormal you are further insinuating something wrong. The “scientific proof” does not make any such descriptions about homosexuality. That is your own take on it.

Lastly, as pointed out, heterosexual procreation is the basis for human survival, and male-female relationships have always been the core of human society in every culture for all of our history. Trying to change that fact and construct a system which flies in the face of mammalian biology, and providing a way to for them to obtain children from heterosexual couples to replace their own natural inability to have children is, quite frankly, twisted.

You can’t possibly be this dense. No one is altering human survival by allowing homosexual marriages. Having homosexuality in the public eye and allowing them marriages and so forth isn’t going to change this. Your anxiety about procreation is absurd. Men and women will continue to fuck each other regardless of whether two males or two females decided to get wedded. Prohibiting them from getting married isn't going to stop them from being gay. Again, you're bring ridiculous. Marriage, first and foremost, is not about procreation—never has been. Marriage was originally about chattel: a transaction between the daughter’s father and the groom-to-be.

The very fact that they long to have children, but cannot due to their sexual preference, should be a clear demonstration that something isn't right.

The only thing that isn’t right is provide asinine definitions of marriage in hope of precluding homosexuals from marriage. Infertile couples cannot have children either and it’s irrelevant whether it’s entirely biological or not. Something isn’t right down there. Yet they’re still human, still long to be united and recognized by the government as spouses.

The very fact that they long to have children, but cannot due to their sexual preference, should be a clear demonstration that something isn't right.

No marriages after menopause?

Your logic is just full of holes.

So brave, all by himself with that microphone and all. Making unintelligible enemy debaters from his non-bulletproof podium.

Might surprise me? That this occurred at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)? No, not really, but I do love a good circus I'll tell you that.

is it so terrible to admit being surprised? i admit it freely. that a clean cut, tough talking anti-gay rights person would be shouted down publicly at c-pac, forcing the moderator to defend his right to have that opinion, as if that opinion had always been unwelcome at such conferences? yeah, i thought it was surprising. i wonder what syngas thinks about it.

...that a clean cut, tough talking anti-gay rights person would be shouted down publicly at c-pac...

So that's what is going on here! I honestly couldn't work out what this was about. If this means that religious crazies are losing their hold on conservatives, that's all to the good, though I'll have to see a lot more to believe it. Now, if only the ridiculous 'socialist' bullshit would stop ... That any 'mainstream' political entity in America can be called 'socialist' is a testament to the complete separation from reality of the right-wing media loudmouths.

is it so terrible to admit being surprised?

You're honestly surprised that a crowed of GOProud members and libertarians were shouting him down? Ron Paul was coming up after that guy and there were a lot of libertarians (tending to be liberal on many social issues) in the crowd.

not to mention the very idea of gay conservatives, and their being invited to the conference. somethings up, somebody wants to separate conservatism from the religious right for political reasons. this may be a good idea (for them) but the surgery looks like it's going to be pretty messy.

Yeah, most Christians want Jesus to be like us, and not the other way around.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives