The Right to Marry: Justice, at Last

[English]

How about all the legal rights/benifits/etc that goes with marriage without using the word?

How about marriage without all the legal rights/benefits/etc that currently go with it? For everybody, that is.
Down with pointless subsidies!

PS Josh is not PD. PD had no sense of humor and would have felt attacked even by my little "I'd like to see that" post. Really I'm quite glad that child isn't around anymore.

Josh22 obviously existed as a previous entity, look at the number of posts. If PD no longer exists as a member it must be him.

[Nation]

My dear contry has opened the flood gates to ruin for the sacred union known as marriage.

PBrunsel, if you think gay and lesbian couples who have been together for years and years and finally have a right to marriage is ruining the sacred union known as marriage, then you apparentely haven't been looking around the nation the past several years.

Look at the divorce rates, and pay attention to the cases of abuse that have been going on for much longer then the concept of same-sex marriage has been around.  From what I've seen, there's a severe lack of love in this country, and too much ignorance and hate.

I mostly agree with Lunar, same-sex marriage is not a right in and of itself, but government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage anyway. "Civil Unions" should be the term for every single couple, whether hetero or homosexual. "Marriage" should be reserved for what it was meant for -- the churches.

[English]

Agree completely!

[minionofmidas]

He previously existed as Josh4Bush. Not for that long though. And I'm not saying he's my favourite poster or anything close, just neither PD nor as bad as PD.

[ilikeverin]

My dear contry has opened the flood gates to ruin for the sacred union known as marriage.

PBrunsel, if you think gay and lesbian couples who have been together for years and years and finally have a right to marriage is ruining the sacred union known as marriage, then you apparentely haven't been looking around the nation the past several years.

Look at the divorce rates, and pay attention to the cases of abuse that have been going on for much longer then the concept of same-sex marriage has been around.  From what I've seen, there's a severe lack of love in this country, and too much ignorance and hate.

I mostly agree with Lunar, same-sex marriage is not a right in and of itself, but government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage anyway. "Civil Unions" should be the term for every single couple, whether hetero or homosexual. "Marriage" should be reserved for what it was meant for -- the churches.

Go Nation

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who defines the "universal moral principles"? Why do we have to stop when it harms others?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think it would do you some good living in San Francisco for a while. I really dislike the gay movement, but I don't know what it is with some gay people... they're just halerious. My aunt has a friend who's gay, and he's halerious. He's just so gay, it's funny. He came over to our house one time and said "Oh my God your sink is soooo cute!!" and we were cracking up.

Meanwhile, my uncle, who is also gay, is not very nice, a drug addict, and dying from AIDS.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I completely agree... one of my liberatarian beliefs. Because technically in the Catholic Church, if you're not married in the Church, your marriage is invalid. So it really doesn't matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would allow most of the rights, but not all. I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children, for instance. Two dad's can't make a mom, and studies show that children have a high prevelency to turn out with serious problems when missing a parental figure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Look who's talking!

[English]

What d'ya mean?
How could I be considered a troll?

[JohnFKennedy]

He previously existed as Josh4Bush. Not for that long though. And I'm not saying he's my favourite poster or anything close, just neither PD nor as bad as PD.

He just changed the screenname, it is still the same user, click his name, it still says Username: Josh4Bush

[angus]

I thought there was an interesting piece today by Jeff Jacoby of The Boston Globe.  Also, Howard Kurtz "Media Notes" today makes the point that the press coverage of gay/lesbian marriage is fairly one-sided.  I think I have to agree with Jeff and Howard.  Anyone else notice this?  It's possible to be in agreement with the "cultural elites" and support gay marriage, but still notice that, given that at least half of my countryment don't, the press coverage seems unnecessarily biased.  This remains a very divisive issue, and our newspapers are not doing it justice.  They have forgone intellectual justice in favor of journalistic activism.  I think it stinks.  I mean, I think anyone ought to marry whomever they want, and even I can say that I think this biased coverage stinks.  Good thing those who know what's best for us are willing to save us from ourselves!

Here's a sample:

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby chides the media, saying the state's judges "...knew they would have the support of the cultural elites, for whom individual autonomy and the pursuit of happiness often seem to be the highest social values. In the allegedly 'progressive' mindset, which dominates what you read in the paper and see on TV, social traditions exist to be challenged, family structure is highly flexible, and the mainstreaming of homosexuality is something only haters or fanatics could oppose."

"No surprise, then, that the media depiction of the same-sex marriage controversy has been strikingly one-sided. The views of those who favor it are often and prominently featured; their appeals to justice and compassion are repeatedly quoted, echoed, and expanded on. There has been a shower of celebratory coverage centered on the wedding plans of gays and lesbians, and upbeat descriptions of all sorts of related matters, from the marketing of wedding dresses for lesbians to the first Bride's magazine article on same-sex ceremonies."

"But there is rarely an admiring story about those who take a stand against throwing out the ancient definition of marriage. Rarely does the coverage suggest that they might have an argument worth listening to or an insight worth considering."

Here's the media notes column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/columns/kurtzhoward/

[minionofmidas]

As long as that defence is done mostly in the PD or even Brambila vein, I guess the media are actually helping them by not broadcasting them much...

[angus]

I think you may be right.  In fact, on public radio this morning was a brief interview with a man who said all the images of two men kissing, or two women in love, etc, will ultimately help his case.  

So, not only are the foul bastards emitting the "rest of the story" but also they are unwittingly helping the traditionalists.  Now I have two reasons to impugn the press.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think you may be right.  In fact, on public radio this morning was a brief interview with a man who said all the images of two men kissing, or two women in love, etc, will ultimately help his case.  

So, not only are the foul bastards emitting the "rest of the story" but also they are unwittingly helping the traditionalists.  Now I have two reasons to impugn the press.

Certainly the media tend to be socially more liberal than the country as a whole.  But how do conservatives suggest the media cover this story in an unbiased way?  Everytime I see a discussion segment on the story, they always have both sides represented.  

[The Duke]

I would respond to that by saying that the change in societal mores has removed a great deal of stigma from the practice of bearing children out of the confines of matrimony. Therefore, the once clear relationship between marriage and reproduction does not exist any longer, and the concept of fertility within certain constraints is no longer a legitimate goal that the state may advance without maligning a broadened concept of equal protection.

For a lot of people, it still does exist.  Maybe not to all, but most kids here are born in a married family.  I admit, the concept is weaker tahn fifty years ago, but that doesn't mean that its okay to weaken it further.

[migrendel]

From StatesRights:

If you are 15 you can have sex with anyone you want
 no matter what. If your parents are against it or stop you they can be arrested for violation of a childs "constitutional rights". If a 15 year old gets pregnant as a result of screwing around they can have an abortion w/out consent or knowledge of a parent. Then when she is ready she can marry 2-10 different men depending on her choice. She then can have as many children as she wants and never see them because she is using her right to go out and work and spend absolutely no time with her children because that would mess with their right to think for themselves and be independent. Then when the child acts out and puts her mother in the hospital the mother would have no right to spank her because that would be violation of a childs "rights".

Well, StatesRights, if you change 15 to 14 in the age of consent section that's about it.

And, John Ford, births in wedlock are growing less common and frankly, I don't see the moral difference.

[Brambila]

Migrendel, the only reason why births in wedlock are decreasing is becuase teens are having less sex.

[migrendel]

Well, no one has to bear a child, but some people decide to. And if they do it outside of wedlock, we have no reason to celebrate that child's birth any less. For at that moment, they have boundless potential.

[The Duke]

And, John Ford, births in wedlock are growing less common and frankly, I don't see the moral difference.

I'm not a big moralist, so I wouldn't say that I see a moral difference, but two-income households and two parent households tend to do a better job of providing financially for their kids and tend to be able to generally raise a kid better.  The main reason is that all the pressure isn't put on one person.  Obviously, there are rare exceptions where the two parent situation, when maybe one parent is abusive or an alchoholic, but generally speaking, a two parent family has an easier time raising a kid.  If we do something to further weaken the link between marriage and child rearing, we hurt children.

[??????????]

From StatesRights:

If you are 15 you can have sex with anyone you want
 no matter what. If your parents are against it or stop you they can be arrested for violation of a childs "constitutional rights". If a 15 year old gets pregnant as a result of screwing around they can have an abortion w/out consent or knowledge of a parent. Then when she is ready she can marry 2-10 different men depending on her choice. She then can have as many children as she wants and never see them because she is using her right to go out and work and spend absolutely no time with her children because that would mess with their right to think for themselves and be independent. Then when the child acts out and puts her mother in the hospital the mother would have no right to spank her because that would be violation of a childs "rights".

Well, StatesRights, if you change 15 to 14 in the age of consent section that's about it.

And, John Ford, births in wedlock are growing less common and frankly, I don't see the moral difference.

Migrendel. A serious question for you. If we find out that their is a gene that makes people gay and doctors recommended that women get abortions w/babies with such defects would you find that acceptable? If this list were diseases or defects such as downs, spinal bifada <sp> or homosexuality? A serious question.

[English]

Too much is made of this issue in my opinion.
There are far more important things to worry about.
Why not just legalise civil unions and have done with it. Let those who want to marry, for marriage sakes let them fight with the church about it.

[Fritz]

Even from you, StatesRights, I cannot believe such a question.

The Medical profession does not, in this day and age, reccomend abortion for any defect of the child, real or imagined.

[migrendel]

It is not my personal inclination to support that as a reason to have an abortion. However, I feel it is a woman's choice, and if she does not wish to give birth to a homosexual child, so be it.

[afleitch]

That is SICK! Homosexual is not something that 'ruins the quality of life' of any individual, why would a mother choose to abort it!!! Besides...they cant test for that yet and by saying that it is a possibility means you now accept that homosexuals are simply born that way. Well done.

[Ben.]

I'm pro gay marriage but I'm not sure if I agree that it's a "right."

I probably agree with you Lunar... I just have really mixed feelings on this, if two people love each other than I believe that they should have the possibility of their stable long term relationship being recognised and them being allowed to marry... but I'm not sure if its "right" or "desirable"... I just don't know its a contentious issue and I haven't got a solid view.  
   

[migrendel]

Because a woman has a choice, aflteich. It is not my duty to pry into her reasoning. But in principle, I have to make my position, even if it means that I run the risk of never having been born.

[Ben.]

Lets make this clear.

Human A. Cannot Kill Human B.

Now if Human A. is a mother and Human B is the child growing within her, then Human A still can’t Kill Human B "the Child".... Its that simple.

That said during the first trimmest and in extraordinary circumstances there after I see no reason why the woman should not have the option to have an abortion much as I may disagree.