Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by zombie, Jan 24, 2006.

  1. Kuag Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2009
    star 2

    Praising a judge for ruling that the citizens of Michigan do not have a right to define what marriage is in their state? It's abominable.
  2. Point Given Mod of Literature and Community

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Dec 12, 2006
    star 5

    What's your opinion on Loving v. Virginia?
  3. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    Majority does not rule, it votes. Either way the Constitution still stands and people's vote on a law can be deemed unconstitutional even if 99.99% of them voted for it.
  4. Kuag Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2009
    star 2

    That it's not related to the current debate of state marriage laws in the slightest. Laws banning interracial marriage were/are rightly castigated as discriminatory as race has no bearing on the debate over what marriage is. And at the heart of all of this is a fundamental societal question: "What is marriage?"

    The people in Michigan believe it to be the union of a man and woman to be mother and father to any potential children that their union creates. Proponents of redefining marriage may feel they have momentum (and they do), but they will start running into some serious headwinds. And here's why I believe that to be the case. At its core, proponents of same-sex marriage are arguing that gender is irrelevant to the institution. People like myself would argue that gender is central to answering the question of "What is marriage?"

    If gender is irrelevant, then so too must be the number of people involved. After all, isn't two just an arbitrary number? Why is marriage limited to just two people? Furthermore, why is marriage assumed to be for life? Why not validate open marriages or temporary marriages? What's so special or important about committing to someone for a lifetime? What's so special about the number two?

    These questions will inevitably arise. And indeed, they already are arising. The concept of throuples is already occurring: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/throuples-are-happening

    I actually agree with people who say government shouldn't care about people's love lives. But that is exactly what proponents of same-sex marriage are actually doing--because marriage is being defined simply as just "two people who love each other." The government is being invited in to recognize and regulate 'love.' The only reason government has ever had an interest in marriage is because the union of a man and a woman can sometimes produce an externality.

    That externality is a child. And there is a vested interest by the state in that child becoming a productive member of society.

    The effort to redefine marriage is shortsighted, IMO. And indeed, it's going beyond the scope of what proponents originally wanted (i.e. equality). Now, it's turning in to a movement that says "bake me a cake or else." And that's having serious implications on the state of religious liberty in the United States. Ultimately, as this debate continues in the United States over what marriage is, no judge should short circuit it by overturning the people's voice on trying to define the institution.

    Let the debate continue. It's healthy for everyone.
    Last edited by Kuag, Mar 27, 2014
  5. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
  6. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    There constitutional scholars, including one instrumental in writing Virginia's current constitution are backing our AG's decision not to defend Virginia's same - sex marriage ban.

    Article here.

    It'll definitely help in the appeals process.
    anakinfansince1983 likes this.
  7. Dingo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 23, 2001
    star 5
    So your argument is that a "marriage" is contract between two people that can become the parents to children?

    Then why are you against 'same-sex marriage'? There is no requirement for those that enter into a marriage to actually produce children; for any children that they raise to even be theirs biologically; nor for the two persons to actually be in love or have any type of intimacy in their relationship with each other.

    Marriages of convenience occur with no restrictions in place to prevent these. Marriages between infertile couples occur despite no potential to 'produce an externality'. Marriages occur between people that create stable family environments for children that they adopt.

    Nothing in your definition of marriage specifically requires those entering a union to be of opposite sexes other than the specific stipulation that they must be of opposite sexes. Gay and lesbian couples can produce stable family environments for children that are produced through IVF, surrogacy, or adoption (options that heterosexual couples have available).


    You also threw out this: "why is marriage assumed to be for life?". In the eyes of the law in most countries, it isn't. However it is legislated, all countries with laws around marriage include in that legislation how the marriage can be dissolved (specifically with divorce laws in all nations but the Philippines and Vatican City yet in the former Muslims can get divorced, and both have annulment laws).


    Then there was the always fun and totally irrelevant 'slippery slope' plea in regards to polygamous marriage. Guess what, it isn't the "between a man and a woman" part of the legal definition of marriage that governs that, but the "contract entered into by 2 persons" part. There is nothing about the debate to remove the sex of the parties from the equation of marriage that has anything at all to do with changing the number of people that can be a party to a marriage. It is nothing but a reach from people trying to create a scare about a false causal relationship.

    Even turning it around to "but by allowing one change to the definition of a marriage, you then have to allow all changes to be made" is just as pathetic a reach of an argument. Marriage laws in many countries were changed to remove a racial bias. The floodgates did not open. As countries began legislating for divorce during the last century there was no giant push for the complete overhaul of the way marriage is defined.

    Marriage as a legal institution will be redefined to fit contemporary values, just as all legislation is. Could it be changed to cover polygamous marriage in the future? Who knows. But right now, and likely for the next couple of decades, it won't be. So stop scrambling for empty issues to back a losing argument.
    Chewgumma, Arawn_Fenn, epic and 2 others like this.
  8. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    I thought I had mentioned this but I can't find it.

    A similar appeal has been filed against North Carolina's Evilmendment One.

    I've already told my friends who had to go to Maryland to marry that I would buy them drinks when this atrocity and embarrassment is struck down.
  9. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    I think you put it in the US Politics thread IIRC.
  10. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    Good, I'm not losing my mind then.

    Or at least this isn't a sign of it. :p
    CloneUncleOwen and Juliet316 like this.
  11. I Are The Internets Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 20, 2012
    star 7
    So which states still need to legalize SSM?
  12. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
  13. Valairy Scot Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    Since this is a Star Wars board, I had a ;) moment reading this - many fans fault the Jedi for not redefining their rules on attachment (at least for Anakin), hence "leading to their slaughter." I wonder how many of those are against "redefining marriage" to fit the changing times?

    /sorry, just couldn't help myself.
    Juliet316 and anakinfansince1983 like this.
  14. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    If Anakin had wanted to break the Jedi Code to marry Kitster, there would be far more outcry that the entitled little **** should have stuck to the a Code.

    The Jedi were terrible because they did not let people get married so that the wimmenz could make babies.

    Anakin and Padme made babies, therefore their marriage should have been blessed.
    Juliet316 likes this.
  15. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
  16. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
  17. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    So, how many states have had theirSSM bans ruled unconstitutional in 2014 so far?
  18. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    I know one of the pastors involved in this suit pretty well. She's not only an amazing person, but very knowledgable and thankfully, tenacious. She was involved in the original fight against the Evilmendment.

    Waiting to see if I get to throw my party.
    Juliet316 and Bail B. Baobab like this.
  19. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    About half of the 30+ states that have them thus far. And it's looking more and more like Virginia is going to be case that goes up to the Supreme Court.
  20. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    I would hate to live in the state that is the last one to repeal their SSM ban.
  21. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    Ten bucks says it's Texas.
  22. Wanderguard Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 15, 2014
    star 1
    Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama will all hold out longer than Texas. Despite its reputation, Texas doesn't hold a candle to the rest of the South in terms of assbackwardness.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  23. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    There's a difference between repeal (which didn't happen in most states that legalized SSM) and a Federal court striking it down. All the states we've seen since the end of last year-- Utah, Oregon, Idaho, Arkansas, etc.-- have had their bans struck down by by judges in U.S. district courts. No one's repealing anything. The cases will make their way through the appellate courts (or most of them) and then the volume will essentially force the Supreme Court to address it (likely the intention of the district judges citing Windsor). They could issue a blanket ruling striking down all SSM bans in the United States, and that would be the obvious course of action. However, I have no faith in the arch-conservative "the Voting Rights Act is antiquated!" Roberts Court; if there's a way to weasel out of this by issuing a narrow ruling or something, I wouldn't be surprised if they did it.
    Last edited by Darth Guy, May 21, 2014
  24. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    It'll be North Carolina. There is still a city ordinance on the books in Charlotte mandating that women be covered with at least 16 feet of cloth.

    (Yeah, **** that ****.)
    Arawn_Fenn likes this.
  25. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    "Republican governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania said on Wednesday that he would not appeal a judge’s ruling striking down Pennsylvania’s ban on same-sex marriage."

    Close enough to repeal as far as I'm concerned. Maybe there will be a lawsuit to try to force the governor to appeal... I don't know how this stuff works.
    Ghost likes this.