What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Obi-Wan McCartney, Dec 4, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Will do. See PM.


    Fire, I agree that the cause of The Children [TM] is bandied about too much, but sometimes it's justified, particularly if the position isn't over-the-top. In this case, I'm merely supporting the idea of government promoting heterosexual monogamy as a unique institution for the sake of future generations. People are -- and should be -- free to do otherwise.

    Fair enough, and yes, sometimes it's justified, in this case I think it's a bit unwarranted. Monogamy, all for it, nothing's better than staying with one person and not cheating or anything. But my issue comes from people that seem to think that monogamy is a hetero only value. Sure there are some slutty homosexuals, but there are also monogamous ones, too. And those are the ones that I support getting married if they wish.
  2. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    I do support extending those benefits, with three provisos:

    1. We don't extend every benefit of marriage just because a few them should be extended.


    Will we extend to homosexual couples all the same benefits given a heterosexual couple that cannot have children?


    2. We extend the benefits through the legal process of changing the law via the legislature.

    If the court rules existing laws unconstitutional, it is up to the legislature to replace them with something constitutional, or else the unconstitutional laws are merely retracted and either all couples can marry, or none can.


    3. We extend the benefits to non-sexual couples, such as a man who needs to take care of an aging aunt, two old maid (or widowed) sisters, etc.

    I've never said that sexual activity should be a requirement for marriage. (This point often gets lost in a debate where we describe the gender composition of a couple as "homosexual" or "heterosexual"; the terminology is not being misused, but it is easily confused with the sexual orientation of the individuals.)

    However, if whatever benefits are extended are given to encourage the creation of a family link between two people, it does not make sense to give that benefit to people where a close family link already exists.

    It would depend, I suppose, on the reasons for extending benefits to any couple.
  3. irishjedi49 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 23, 2002
    star 3
    OT: The homelessness problem really isn't that complex in San Francisco, Kessel - the city hands out money, and other cities' homeless come to the city. Act crazy enough, harass people, defecate on the sidewalks, and anyone who tries to argue you shouldn't get subsidies will be shouted down as insensitive to homeless people.

    Free love movement wasn't so great either (one out of three children born out of wedlock, STD epidemics, divorces, etc.).

    I hardly think San Francisco is a shining beacon of light to the rest of the country. But perhaps they will soon be pushing polyamory, polygamy, epibophilia, and who knows what else on us as well. The people don't want it? Well, what do they know? They're just "intolerant" and small-minded. Better if we just nod at them politely and ignore them.


    womberty - AFAIK, ex post facto only applies to criminal punishment - you can't be punished for something that was legal at the time that you did it. Invalidating gay "marriage" licenses wouldn't be subject to that prohibition.
  4. SRB_Jedi_Knight Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 25, 2002
    star 4
    One of the biggest arguments within this discussion on the side of those that are for gay marriage right is the equality of benefits. I would like to dig deeper into this part of the issue in my post.

    First and foremost this issue regarding equality of benefits can easily be taken care of by allowing civil unions. If that is what they want then I have no problem with that at all. Civil Unions will accomplish this fact, however the real answer is that there is a desire to undermine and weaken the institution of marriage. The institution of marriage is what advocates against gay marriage are trying to defend. They want to keep the ideals that the institution of marriage has been built upon.

    As to the benefits themselves, there are two areas to break these into. The first of which I will try to cover are the financial aspects which are covered under both the private and public sectors. For the public sector I would like to know exactly what benefits there are exactly. I have been married for 4 years now. I certainly haven?t seen the benefits. I mean as a married couple we get stiffed with higher taxes due to the wonderful marriage tax penalty. So it?s not like you can say we have an advantage within the public sector concerning taxes and the amount we have to pay versus a gay couple. We by far pay more so there can be no benefit in this area. The only true benefit I could see is all this hype over the social security benefits. That in and of itself is not the most solid thing to state as a benefit, let us face facts, social security is not in the best of situations at this point in time. However if the gay marriage activists want the benefit then it can be given to them through civil unions. This brings us back to the following point, civil unions will accomplish this fact, however the real answer is that there is a desire to undermine and weaken the institution of marriage.

    Now as far as private sector benefits are concerned, the benefits if any, are there because the private sector has seen that there is a need for them. Through that need there is a way for the private sector to make money from it. If the need is there then the private sector will find a way for the benefits to be given because they know in the long run they will make something from the investment of giving the benefits. So this holds true just as the statement above does as well. Once again civil unions will accomplish this fact, however the real answer is that there is a desire to undermine and weaken the institution of marriage.

    Now there is another area concerning the taking care of a sick or terminally ill partner. This again can be accomplished in one of two ways. Either by going through it legally and getting a lawyer to draw up the paperwork for it. The other option is through civil unions. This brings us back to the following point, civil unions will accomplish this fact, however the real answer is that there is a desire to undermine and weaken the institution of marriage.
  5. DARTH_CONFEDERATE Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2003
    star 5
    I have a question. When a real couple has a real marriage, the man is the husband and the woman a wife. But what is it when two men or two women are married? I was just wondering. I think on should be caled "Soddam" and the other "Gamorah." I am opposed to "gay marriage" one hundred and ten percent.

    I think it should be left up for states to decide. And I don't mean the politicians or courts. I think it should be the people of the states to go out and vote if it should be legal or illegal. It's going to be different in every part of the country, and one part shouldn't tell another what to do.
  6. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    An interesting note on the New Mexico marriages: an article in the Albuquerque Journal last year stated, "no state law specifically forbids a gay couple from getting married in New Mexico. Court clerks have simply refused to issue a marriage license for same-sex couples."

    So, it would seem that it is up to the discretion of the clerk.

    However, I think the state's attorney general has issued a statement saying that the same-sex marriages granted are not valid; it will be interesting to see the reasoning on it.


    ex post facto only applies to criminal punishment - you can't be punished for something that was legal at the time that you did it. Invalidating gay "marriage" licenses wouldn't be subject to that prohibition.

    So, by that reasoning, could a state revoke common-law marriages as well?


    First and foremost this issue regarding equality of benefits can easily be taken care of by allowing civil unions. If that is what they want then I have no problem with that at all. Civil Unions will accomplish this fact, however the real answer is that there is a desire to undermine and weaken the institution of marriage.

    But if you are unwilling to apply "civil unions" to all couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, you are arguing for separate but [un]equal treatment.
  7. Aunecah_Skywalker Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 25, 2002
    star 5
    In Scandinavia, the extension of those benefits, etc., likely contributed to an increase in the number of children born out of wedlock.

    Must I keep repeating this?


    And how many times do I have to keep repeating that those numbers aren't that high just in Scandanavia??? [face_plain] Besides, married gay people can't have children with their respective spouses, so the increase in numbers is much more the fault of hetrosexual people than anybody else.

    -Aunecah
  8. somethingfamiliar Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 20, 2003
    star 5
    This brings us back to the following point, civil unions will accomplish this fact, however the real answer is that there is a desire to undermine and weaken the institution of marriage.

    Correct: Civil unions would accomplish equality of benefits. If civil unions become the norm, marriage need no longer be a legal instition at all. We only need the one legally-recognized relationship, not both. Marriage would not be undermined or weakened, it would be replaced as a legal institution and set into its proper sphere as a religious sacrament where it would retain all of the qualities that make it important to those to whom that matters.
  9. scum&villainy Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 1999
    star 4
    Can't link to that, due to inappropriate language directly being linked to.
  10. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    Ahhh, the Onion. what a hoot. ;)

    Here's a real story:
    Reuters
    SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A San Francisco judge on Friday denied a request by a conservative family values group to stop the thousands of same-sex weddings that have taken place in the city since Mayor Gavin Newsom lifted a ban on gay marriages last week.

    It was the second time in a week that a State Superior Court judge had denied a request to issue a temporary restraining order that would stop the weddings until the issues could be resolved at a further hearing or trial.

    San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay denied the request on the grounds that the conservative family values group, the Campaign for California Families, had not presented evidence showing that irreparable harm would be caused by allowing the weddings to continue.


  11. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    Well, that's fine then Tina. Just don't try to tell me how to live either.

    Well, Tina, I guess you and I need to stop recruiting Vezner into the "Homosexuals R Us" club. He doesn't like being told how to live. ;)

  12. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    Bubba:

    I don't know why I bother responding to your posts, since you continuously insult me by indicating that, one, I don't know anything about children and you know more than I do; and two, my role in society is not important since I am not a mother, and therefore, my opinion doesn't count.

    This may be the last one I answer. I am not going to continue to debate you if you keep talking to me like I'm stupid because I don't aspire to your personal belief that The Married Couple With Children=God.

    Nevertheless, let me see if I can give this one more shot.

    The free love movement of the 1960's probably did harm with the scourges of sexually transmitted diseases in the 1970's and 1980's.

    No, not using condoms caused that to happen.

    At any rate, if you see this great big disconnect between the treatment of single people and marriage, why not push for the outright abolition of the institution?

    I would support replacing all "marriage" with the word "civil union" before I would support only condoning marriage as an environment in which to raise children.

    So the government should be unconcerned about whether the next generation of Americans are going to be well integrated into society?

    The government should be concerned about children, but not connect that concern to what consenting adults without children do. We're citizens of this country too, you know, and we are just as important as those who are parents.

    Regardless of the reasons, when a man and a woman get involved sexually, children are often the result.

    I've got a lot of friends who could disprove that.

    Anyway, the reality is, not everyone uses birth control. If you believe in reproductive rights, you can't force them, either.

    I believe in reproductive rights if you actually want and are able to take care of a child. Hopefully everyone else is smart enough to use birth control.

    It might, then, be a good idea to promote heterosexual fidelity so that when pregnancy occurs, the child can be born in a stable environment to be raised by his two biological parents.

    Since a child will never occur from a homosexual union--as you have pointed out time and time again, like it's a bad thing--then why are you concerned about how a child will be raised "if a pregnancy occurs"?

    I cringe, frankly, when I see someone insisting that the historical biological connection between sex and childbirth is to be weakened even further, treating pregnancy as a negative and all-together unexpected consequence of sex.

    For some people, it is a negative consequence of sex.

    I cringe when I see people try to limit the use of birth control. I cringe when I see people who act like parents are the only adults whose opinions in society matter, and non-parents are second-class citizens because they are not "contributing". I cringe when I see people chastise people for not reproducing. I cringe when I see the population of the world increase by one billion in a mere 11 years, when it took until 1805 for the world to get its first billion people.

    Likewise, the birth control pill has given us to have sex without the otherwise natural consequence of reproduction. To be sure, that's had some benefits, But are we so certain that that has had no negative effects on us? To the point that we should push for a further separation of the two?

    The only inventions of mankind that have been greater than the birth control pill are electricity and flushing toilets.

    I am quite certain that it has had no negative effects on us, except for the remote possibility of cervical cancer. But even then, your chances of ovarian cancer decrease. I even use the Pill to help with my endometriosis.

    Anecdotal evidence that is overbroad in its generalizations and stereotypes and that does not compare with the reasons I gave.

    Personal experience always beats statistics.

    I disagree, and if you're not going to make any effort to explain why you think
  13. Vezner Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 29, 2001
    star 5
    I've decided that this crowd, meaning those for gay marriage, are not worth arguing with (at least not on this forum). I have had quite a few personal attacks against me since I entered into this debate. If that's the best you can come up with to argue your case, then I feel that my point is made and I consider the issue resolved (at least as far as this forum is concerned).

    My conclusions, as far as what you pro gay marriage activists have stated, is that you have no clear or logical reason to call it a marriage. There have been compromises that have been made in the form of civil unions that would give you the equality that you seek. The gay community on this forum has rejected it because none of you have stated that you would accept it. You simply continue to argue for gay "marriage".

    You know the reasons for our wanting to keep institution of marriage the way it is, from both a religious standpoint, as well as a historical/cultural one. Heck, I've even brought science into this debate but to no avail.

    I conclude that there really is an effort to destroy the institution of marriage as we know it, and I weep for our society when that day happens. The Sodom and Gomorah analogy may very well be true for us in our near future. I'm a religious person and when I read the bible and I read about the "last days" I see our world very quickly becoming that. I'm not a doom sayer or anything like that, but I do see us quickly approaching the end. I wouldn't doubt if we see it in our lifetimes. I will continue to fight for good morals and sacred institutions even though it doesn't seem to be the politicall correct thing to do now days. I guess the end result of my efforts wont matter much in the long run, because anyone that reads the Bible and believs in it and our Savior knows how it will come out in the end.

    Flame me if you want because quite frankly, it wont hurt me at all. I'm firm in my faith and I know what I know. Whether you agree with me or not is your agency and each of us will have to be accountable for our actions when we reach the judgement seat of God.

    This will be my last post so have fun taking your cheap shots. I wont bother trying to stop you.
  14. dustchick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2000
    star 1
    Regarding The purpose of marriage is the raising, the procreation of the race, and raising children. and other such comments:

    Aiieee!!! Aren't you curious how the human species managed to procreate and thrive before the invention of marriage? I also have a lot of difficulty with this institution being held up as an ideal based on tradition - I think many women on these boards would resist getting married if we had to endure some of the traditional trappings of marriage. So, I must admit, if you've been making "historical" or "traditional" arguments, you've lost me.

    A marriage is what you make of it - some marry for health insurance, some marry because a child is on the way, some marry for love. Having just celebrated my fourteenth anniversary with my SO, it always surprises me that people ask us, "Why haven't you married? You're missing out on the tax breaks (or health ins benefits, cheaper car ins., etc...)!" If you think people don't consider some of the benefits when getting married, you're incredibly naive. Our best friends finally married when one partner lost his health insurance - they'd been together for 11 years at that point.

    That's why I support the ability for gays to marry or for all such legal bonds (heterosexual or homosexual) to be called civil unions. For our part, one of the major reasons my SO and I haven't gone through the legal process of getting married is that we have gay friends who are unable to do likewise.
  15. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    My conclusions, as far as what you pro gay marriage activists have stated, is that you have no clear or logical reason to call it a marriage.

    Only because that is the term the government uses for the unions it recognizes between heterosexual couples. If you call those civil unions, you can call homosexual unions "civil unions" as well.


    You know the reasons for our wanting to keep institution of marriage the way it is, from both a religious standpoint, as well as a historical/cultural one. Heck, I've even brought science into this debate but to no avail.

    The religious standpoint doesn't carry any weight in debating the legal options. You didn't exactly bring science into it, either; you brought a biased website putting its own spin on scientific studies.

    You want to bring science into it, name the study, and give a direct link.


    The Sodom and Gomorah analogy may very well be true for us in our near future.

    I don't think the government should pass laws out of fear that God might rain down fire and brimstone if it doesn't.
  16. Kessel Runner Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 1999
    star 6
    I've decided that this crowd, meaning those for gay marriage, are not worth arguing with (at least not on this forum). I have had quite a few personal attacks against me since I entered into this debate. If that's the best you can come up with to argue your case, then I feel that my point is made and I consider the issue resolved (at least as far as this forum is concerned).


    It cuts both ways. Several of us on the pro-gay marriage front have been personally assaulted in this thread as well. And we can make no headway against the arguments that seem to be entirely based upon religious convictions, ignoring basic equality issues.

    EDIT: A friend just sent me two links that I think everyone here should see.

    Justly Married
    Flowers for Marriages
  17. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    Let's see--what have I been called on this thread--hypocritical, a freak, whiny, selfish, childish? Do I stop there?

    I don't think the government should pass laws out of fear that God might rain down fire and brimstone if it doesn't.

    Yeah, but they might be afraid God would tell Laura Bush not to look back or she might be turned into a pillar of sodium chloride. ;)
  18. Master_Fwiffo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 29, 2001
    star 3
    [image=http://sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2004/02/15/ba_rally1501.jpg]
  19. Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2002
    star 4
    anakin_girl:

    I don't know why I bother responding to your posts, since you continuously insult me by indicating that, one, I don't know anything about children and you know more than I do; and two, my role in society is not important since I am not a mother, and therefore, my opinion doesn't count.

    I do no such thing. I do not mean to imply that you know nothing about children, only that perhaps you're not omniscient on the subject.

    Nor do I mean to imply that your role in society is unimportant. At the least, the role of those who are parents is different. Even if it is uniquely important, that doesn't automatically mean that everyone else is unimportant. It doesn't logically follow.


    This may be the last one I answer. I am not going to continue to debate you if you keep talking to me like I'm stupid because I don't aspire to your personal belief that The Married Couple With Children=God.

    I do not have that personal belief, nor do I express it.

    If you're going to so thoroughly misconstrue my beliefs, why should I care if you threaten to stop?


    But, in the spirit of your "one more shot," I'll do likewise.


    "The free love movement of the 1960's probably did harm with the scourges of sexually transmitted diseases in the 1970's and 1980's."

    No, not using condoms caused that to happen.


    Not using condoms wouldn't have spread disease so much had people been abstinent or monogamous. True enough, condoms would have prevented the increased promiscuity from resulting in the spread of disease, but it is the promiscuity that necessitated the condom to begin with.

    And that promiscuity can be traced back to the free love movement of the '60's. That movement did have negative consequences.


    I would support replacing all "marriage" with the word "civil union" before I would support only condoning marriage as an environment in which to raise children.

    That is the problem: there needs to be some promotion of stable environments for children.


    The government should be concerned about children, but not connect that concern to what consenting adults without children do. We're citizens of this country too, you know, and we are just as important as those who are parents.

    "The government should be concerned," great, but what should the government do? If not promote marriage because of the stability it provides children, what acts should the government take?

    To say, "not this!" because it upsets a few adults who don't have kids would be fine if you had a reasonable alternative plan to promote stable environments for children. In the absence of such a plan, should I really take seriously your belief that the government should be concerned?


    "Regardless of the reasons, when a man and a woman get involved sexually, children are often the result."

    I've got a lot of friends who could disprove that.


    I'm skeptical. Deeply skeptical. Let's say that none of your friends get pregnant after engaging in heterosexual intercourse.

    If I had claimed that children are "always" the result, sure, your anecdotal evidence would disprove my claim.

    But I only claimed that children are "often" the result, and I don't see how local anecdotal evidence to the contray can be applied on the national scale.

    The fact is, there are about 4.1 million births in this country every year. Couple that with about 1.3 million abortions and that means that 5.4 million pregnancies a year.

    5.4 million. That's larger than the individual populations of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 31 states.

    The vast majority of those pregnancies resulted from heterosexual intercourse. And the number's insignificant? I think not.


    I believe in reproductive rights
  20. Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2002
    star 4
    Am I the only one who notices that people are talking about the joy in San Francisco as if that's a serious point? As if what the California constitution and code of law actually say pales in comparison to the Kodak moments?


    Are you going back again and again to these photos because the intellectual and legal arguments for Newsom's actions don't stand up to scrutiny?

    Are you abandoning logic and reason and going to tear-jerking emotional reactions because you know you can't win doing anything else?


    Seriously, what do the pictures prove?

    Do they prove that those couples were being discriminated against? No, they think they were being discriminated against. They're not exactly unbiased judges in a position to make that determination, are they?


    I think those pictures ultimately prove one thing about the people there:

    People become very happy when they get what they want.

    The people there, they wanted gay marriage, they wanted it badly, and now they're getting it, they're happy! That's not a big revelation. It doesn't prove that their cause was just, only that it was feverntly desired.


    And I think the use of those pictures as some sort of rhetorical device indicate one thing about a few people here:

    Emotions matter more than logic, reason, or law.
  21. Master_Fwiffo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 29, 2001
    star 3
    On Bubbas note....

    Some of you for gay marrage who say 'they are so happy', are you anti war (with Iraq)?

    If so, then you must be hypocritical, because if the ends justify the means, the pictures of Iraqis dancing in the streets should have won you over.

    (apologies for this post sounding incoherent. Is not even 5am here(
  22. ivylore Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2000
    star 2
    If so, then you must be hypocritical, because if the ends justify the means, the pictures of Iraqis dancing in the streets should have won you over.

    Try watching the first fifteen minutes of the CBC's Deadline Iraq - Uncensored Stories of the War and let's see how your stomach feels. Remember the kid who had his arms blown off (and was turned into war icon) - A CNN staffer actually said, upon reveiwing photos of him, "don't you have any of him smiling?"

    Try watching yet another memorial service.

    Righto, that one hour of Iraqi's dancing makes up for the war.

    That makes me a hyprocrite I guess.



  23. Master_Fwiffo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 29, 2001
    star 3
    Try 3 hours of dancing all over the entirity of Iraq, plus another 3 when Sadam was captured, plus all the images and clips I can come up with of soldeirs themselves playing with children, getting hugged by Iraqis who see them for the first time, ect.

    But I digress. This is all for another thread.
  24. Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2002
    star 4
    Ivy, the point we're trying to make is we shouldn't be arguing public policy on the basis of nothing more than photographs.

    To Fwiffo's question, the most reasonable response is that photographs simply don't tell us enough about most situations to warrant basing our decisions solely on them.

    Instead, you're happily travelling further down the road that pictures are paramount? Suggesting that your pictures of the horror that accompanies every war trump the pictures of celebration?


    What are the rules?

    Does the existence of a single photograph documenting the horrors of war trump all pictures of Iraqi celebration? So, if there had been only one tragic death in the entire campaign, the picture of the wounded body would render the entire war immoral?

    (And questions begin to arise, like, how do we know whether a picture resulted from American action in present-day Iraq or from the actions of a Palestinian thug in Israel?)

    Or is it a comparison by numbers? Do the upsetting pictures win this argument only if they outnumber the happy pictures? (Do they outnumber them in reality?)

    Or must the pictures be weighted by their impact? Does a picture of one middle-aged Iraqi count for less than a picture of a toddler? Does a picture of a wounded civilian with a broken arm count for less than a picture of a civilian with a lost arm?

    And what about pictures of the horrors that justified the war, pictures of mass graves of Saddam's victims? Do the happy photos and the mass grave photos trump the horrors-of-war photos?


    Let's not limit these questions to this war.

    The Civil War: I believe there are many more photographs (taken by Matthew Brady and others) documenting the horrors of that war than there are pictures of freed slaves celebrating. Does that mean the Civil War was immoral?

    [image=http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/cwpb/00900/00915r.jpg]

    The American Revolution: There are no photographs of this war. Does that mean it's absolutely impossible to determine whether it was moral?


    Let's not limit these questions just to war.

    Photographs of open-heart surgery upset a lot of people. Does that mean we should outlaw such surgery?

    Sure, one could argue that the photos of happy people recovering from the surgery and later playing with their grandkids at home trump the photos of the surgery itself.

    But that begs the question... how can you tell that a photo of a man smiling from his hospital bed or playing with his granddaughter at a playground is the result of the surgery?

    For that matter (and as I hinted at with an earlier parenthetical question), how can you tell that the photos of mass graves in Iraq add to the case for war instead of the case against war?

    ALL THESE PHOTOGRAPHS REQUIRE CONTEXT.


    That leads to two problems I have with the posting of the gay marriage photos here.

    First, I suspect that y'all are selectively introducing context. The photos themselves do not reveal the fact that marriage has, up to now, been defined as "one man, one woman," excluding same-sex couples and -- in your view -- discriminating against them. You have no problem with that contextual detail coloring people's opinion of the photos. It's only such mundane details like the rule of law that you're attempting to trivialize.

    Second, even if that's not true, looking at photographs is an absurd way to make political decisions.

    I know, I know: I'm being inflammatory for using the word "absurd," but let me ask you, would you teach a child to trust a stranger if he looks friendly? No? Then why would you try to persuade others to make important decisions on the basis of superficial appearances, completely dissociated from the context surrounding them?

    (I know the reason, you think you have a better chance of winning this argument with pictures than you do with ideas and with facts about the law. But that isn't a good reason, and we all know it.)

    Such a methodology trivializes some of the most important things about life -- like
  25. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    Wow, those images of San Franciscans must really have hit a mark to get everyone so riled up, eh? ;) I mean, all of a sudden we're comparing them to Iraq and the Civil War?? Wow.

    I believe the links were provided to give add commentary to the thread by those who were there. By showing these images and hearing these testimonies, it gives one a better idea of the situation at City Hall--that is to say, it wasn't a croud of political activists angrily seeking to destroy the state constitution with their hatred for everything heterosexual. It was about who have loved each other (in many cases, monogomously for decades) seeking to solemnly promise their lifelong commitment to each other.

    But then, if you're stirred so into a fuss of pictures of happiness... [face_mischief]

    So, we've pretty well run the distance of attacks. We've gone from arguing over the actual issue to attacking judges and city officials with whom you don't agree, to attacking the court system as a whole, to attacking pictures.

    Odd.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.