the conservative case for same sex marriage

[corianderstem]

Also, call me dumb, but what does "NSFW" mean?

Not safe for work.

It's a tag many people will use as a friendly heads- up to people that they might not want to click this link or watch this video if they're at work.

 

[indra]

Not safe for work.

It's a tag many people will use as a friendly heads- up to people that they might not want to click this link or watch this video if they're at work.

I always read it as New South Fucking Wales, but that's probably just me.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Not safe for work.

It's a tag many people will use as a friendly heads- up to people that they might not want to click this link or watch this video if they're at work.

Ah, okay. Thanks .

I was for some reason thinking "Not So Far Wrong". I don't know why.

Angela

 

[Irvine511]

i thought it was "Not So Fast, Whitey."

oh well.

wrong this whole time ...

 

[corianderstem]

Oh it does - but just when someone's talking to you.

 

[Spoutnik]

Ever notice that the society has a greater issue with a gay couple raising children than a lesbian couple?

Says alot about our perception of homosexuality and our tolerance.

 

[INDY500]

Doesn't society generally favor granting children to the mother in a divorce case?
Isn't society generally more accepting of single mothers over single fathers?
Aren't the majority of nannies, au pairs, school teachers and babysitters females?

 

[Spoutnik]

And you would have a problem that your daughter 3rd grade teacher is a man?

..(but that's a whole other can of worms to open.This being a same sex marriage thread.)

But coming to the same sex couple with children.Being oppose for gay couples to raise kids but accepting lesbian couples to do so,it feels that that point of view is trying to be "half pregnant"

...Which means,you can't.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I'm guessing part of that has to do with the fact that women can still reproduce, so as long as they can still "fulfill the duties of mankind", anti-gay marriage people are willing to look the other way. Men...not really an option there.

And, this doesn't have to do with raising children, but there's also the belief that two girls in a relationship is generally seen as "hot" (unless they're "butch"), whereas with guys, it's more disgusting to a lot of people. Why, I don't know. So I guess once you accept the couple, maybe seeing them do anything else-raise kids, live together, get married, whatever-is easier for people to deal with.

Angela

 

[INDY500]

Fur better or worse: Postman Uwe Mitzscherlich marries his cat
news.com.au

A German postman has "married" his obese and asthmatic cat, saying he wanted to tie the knot before his pet died.

"Cecilia is such a trusting creature. We cuddle all the time, and she has always slept in my bed," Uwe Mitzscherlich, 39, told Bild newspaper.

"Our hearts beat as one - it's unique!"

Because marrying an animal is illegal, Mr Mitzscherlich paid €300 ($428) for a television actress to play officiator in the ceremony. His twin brother, Erik, served as witness.

Actress Christin-Maria Lohri, who officiated the ceremony, was quoted as saying: "At first I thought it was a joke. But for Mr Mitzscherlich it's a dream come true."

Just thought I'd pass on this dispatch from the slippery slope.

 

[Irvine511]

that's totally like gay marriage, because cats and gays have equal rights and standing in society. someone is always picking up my shit from the litter box. meow! i'm a kitty cat!

thanks for sharing!

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

And that slippery slope is flat out stupid. That's just one of those every once in a while crazy, lonely guy (or girl) stories. I'd be willing to make a very safe bet that 99.999999999% of the people in the world have absolutely zero desire to marry cats. Or dogs. Or horses. Or lamps. Or whatever the hell else people who spin out that insane "slippery slope" argument throw out there (not to mention, from what I recall in my studies in school, the "slippery slope" argument is not advised as a worthwhile debate tactic, so anyone using that might want to brush up on their debating skills).

That, and in most places this wouldn't be considered valid anyway, 'cause you kinda have to have a thing called consent going on between both parties. Animal species can't exactly do that, so those "marriages" are really null and void to begin with. I'm pretty sure that isn't going to be recognized as a truly legal marriage, and if it is, well, I don't know what to tell you other than that particular area is very strange.

Angela

 

[Irvine511]

and where do these (almost nonexistent) people say that they have been emboldened, or inspired, by gay people?

(nowhere)

 

[martha]

You forgot the part where Mexicans take over.

 

[BVS]

Just thought I'd pass on this dispatch from the slippery slope.

Are you moving to full time troll?

 

[Vincent Vega]

Just thought I'd pass on this dispatch from the slippery slope.

Because marrying an animal is illegal, Mr Mitzscherlich paid €300 ($428) for a television actress to play officiator in the ceremony. His twin brother, Erik, served as witness.

In case you didn't read or weren't able to comprehend the text you posted. And it's a heterosexual marriage, since the cat is female. So I'm afraid this slippery slope you are somehow imagining starts a bit earlier than you want to acknowledge.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

And it's a heterosexual marriage, since the cat is female.

Words can't express how much I love this part of your post

What about the straight woman who wanted to marry the Berlin Wall and all of those other kinds of relationships-we had a thread about it here. And what about straight guys who are sexually turned on watching a woman gorge herself with food and pay money to watch that online? Zero to do with gay marriage but I'll just pull them out of my (ass) hat.

A guy marrying his cat has zero to do with two people who are gay who love each other and want to get married.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

...way to point that out, Vincent Vega.

Yeah, come to think of it, it does seem usually when you hear these stories the human and the animal are of opposite sexes, not the same sex, so.... Wonder what that means ?

Angela

 

[deep]

can we please move on

...way to point that out, Vincent Vega.

the guy has a mullet!

he is obviously straight.

 

[INDY500]

And it's a heterosexual marriage, since the cat is female.

He does look a little pussywhipped now that you mention it.

 

[melon]

Iceland passes gay marriage law in unanimous vote | Reuters

Iceland passes gay marriage law in unanimous vote
Fri, Jun 11 2010

REYKJAVIK (Reuters) - Iceland, the only country in the world to have an openly gay head of state, passed a law on Friday allowing same-sex partners to get married in a vote which met with no political resistance.

The Althingi parliament voted 49 to zero to change the wording of marriage legislation to include matrimony between "man and man, woman and woman," in addition to unions between men and women.

Iceland, a socially tolerant island nation of about 320,000 people, became the first country to elect an openly gay head of state in 2009 when Social Democrat Johanna Sigurdardottir became prime minister after being nominated by her party.

"The attitude in Iceland is fairly pragmatic," said Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson, a political scientist at the University of Iceland. "It (gay marriage) has not been a big issue in national politics -- it's not been controversial."

The prime minister's sexual orientation garnered far more interest among foreign media than in Iceland, where the attitude toward homosexuality has grown increasingly relaxed in the past two or three decades, Kristinsson added.

Iceland's protestant church has yet to decide whether to allow same-sex marriages in church, although the law says "ministers will always be free to perform (gay) marriage ceremonies, but never obliged to."

The largely protestant countries of northern Europe, including Sweden, Norway and Denmark, have all endorsed some form of civil union between same-sex couples, but the issue creates more controversy in Mediterranean Catholic nations.

In the United States, gay marriage remains a frought political issue, with laws varying widely from state to state. Vermont was the first state to allow same-sex civil unions in 1999, followed by Massachusetts and Connecticut and others.

 

[DrTeeth]

Welcome to the 21st century Iceland!

 

[INDY500]

Welcome to the 21st century Iceland!

If only whales were gay.

 

[BoMac]

.

The armed forces no longer has a specific policy for gay and lesbian members, and some uniformed personnel march in Pride parades.

Serving with pride


Jon Tattrie
Metro Edmonton

11 June 2010 05:45

In the past 20 years, the Canadian Forces has gone from being a homophobic organization that actively hounded out gay and lesbian members, to one of the world’s leading advocates of open integration.

Rana Sioufi, a spokeswoman for the Forces, says after abolishing the don’t ask, don’t tell policy in 1992, the armed forces no longer has a specific policy for gay and lesbian members and uniformed personnel regularly march in pride parades and marry in base chapels.

“Members who are same-sex partners are entitled to the same respect and dignity as heterosexual married couples or common-law partners,” Sioufi says.

That’s a long way from the treatment Michelle Douglas received in 1989. She complied with the secretive policy by not revealing she was a lesbian, but the special investigations unit kicked in the closet door.

Douglas was interrogated on the suspicion she was gay and ultimately dismissed on the grounds that she was “not advantageously employable due to homosexuality.”

“it was a very, very different time,” the Toronto woman says. “There was a sense that gays in the military were somehow tantamount to criminals. It was a really sad approach.”

Douglas fought back in court and her action led to the Forces abandoning don’t ask, don’t tell in 1992. That paved the way for rapid change.

"It was a very unpleasant experience at the time ... But in the end, Canada did the right thing, and i’m very proud of that,” she says.

That experience is being studied carefully south of the border, where U.S. President Barack Obama is poised to repeal the don’t ask, don’t tell policy U.S. Armed Forces installed in 1993.

Halifax resident Jennifer Paty saw its effects first hand during her sparkling 20-year career in the U.S. Navy, which ended in 1994. The second she was out of the forces, she came out of the closet and has since fought hard against the policy.

“It was such a betrayal,” she says of the policy she believes forces people to lie about who they are and who they love. “It was heartbreaking.”

Paty, now a minister in the Safe Harbour Metropolitan Community Church, hopes the U.S. can follow her new home’s example.

​

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Good for Canada and Iceland . Excellent news.

So much for "U.S.A. #1!", eh?

Angela

 

[anitram]

If only whales were gay.

I wonder if there will come a day when you feel embarrassed about pretty much everything you've ever said on this topic.

Sort of like when I found my diary from years ago and had to cringe at most of the things in there. Of course, I wrote them when I was 10 and not an adult, sentient being.

 

[melon]

Of course, I wrote them when I was 10 and not an adult, sentient being.

"Adulthood" and "sentience" don't necessarily go hand-in-hand.

 

[Irvine511]

hey guys, look! you see? it's not at all about hate or targeting a minority or being a big, nasty bully. it really is all about protecting the children and stuff and not at all about making sure that faggots and dykes know they're fucked up and weird and not-as-good-as-you. nothing punitive or hateful here at all!

Prop. 8 backers target 18,000 same-sex marriages
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 16, 2010

(06-15) 17:47 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- As the trial over California's prohibition on same-sex marriage enters its final stage today, the ban's sponsors are urging the judge to go a step further and revoke state recognition of the marriages of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before voters passed Proposition 8.

Such an order would honor "the expressed will of the people," backers of the November 2008 ballot measure said Tuesday in their final written filing before Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.

Andrew Pugno, an attorney for Prop. 8's backers, said in an interview that the sponsors aren't asking Walker to nullify the 18,000 marriages, but only to rule that government agencies, courts and businesses no longer have to recognize the couples as married.

Lawyers for two same-sex couples who sued to overturn Prop. 8, on the other hand, are asking Walker to lift the marriage ban permanently. The measure violates the constitutional guarantee of equality, they argued, and must be struck down "regardless of its level of public support."

Walker heard 12 days of testimony in his San Francisco courtroom in January in the nation's first federal court trial on the constitutionality of a law defining marriage as a male-female union. Among those who took the stand were the plaintiff couples - two women from Berkeley and two men from Burbank - and a parade of academic witnesses who testified about the history and meaning of marriage and the status of gays and lesbians in society.

The judge has scheduled closing arguments to last all day today. His ruling, which could be weeks away, will be the first round in a battle likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court within two years.

Walker sent both sides a list of questions to be addressed in the arguments and let them respond initially in writing. In their answers Tuesday, Prop. 8's sponsors argued that the state has numerous legitimate reasons to define marriage traditionally - to guard children's welfare, maintain social stability, and honor voters' moral and religious views.

"Moral disapproval of homosexual conduct is not tantamount to animus, bigotry or discrimination," said Charles Cooper, lawyer for Protect Marriage, the Prop. 8 campaign organization. "On the contrary, religions that condemn homosexual conduct also teach love of gays and lesbians."

Theodore Olson, lead attorney for the couples challenging Prop. 8, called the measure "an attempt to enforce private moral beliefs about a disfavored minority." He said the Yes on 8 campaign, supported by the Roman Catholic and Mormon churches, had told voters that same-sex relationships are immoral and had exploited fears that gays menace children.

Walker also asked both sides what he should do if he found Prop. 8 unconstitutional. Its sponsors replied that the only potential legal flaws in the measure were supplied by the California Supreme Court and could be removed by interpreting the measure more broadly.

The state court ruled in May 2008 that gays and lesbians had the right to marry the partner of their choice. After Prop. 8 overturned that ruling six months later, the California court upheld the measure while also affirming the legality of 18,000 same-sex marriages performed before the election.

Gay rights advocates argued that the unequal treatment of couples who married at different times was one of many reasons to overturn the ballot measure. But Cooper said Tuesday there was a better way to treat both groups of couples equally while respecting the people's will - "sustaining Proposition 8 by giving it retrospective effect," that is, deny state recognition to the pre-election marriages.

 

[BVS]

But but but... they applaud the gay singers.

That should count for something, right?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

"Andrew Pugno, an attorney for Prop. 8's backers, said in an interview that the sponsors aren't asking Walker to nullify the 18,000 marriages, but only to rule that government agencies, courts and businesses no longer have to recognize the couples as married."

...uh...call me crazy, but that sounds an awful lot like nullifying to me:

nul·li·fy /ˈnʌləˌfaɪ/ [nuhl-uh-fahy]
–verb (used with object), -fied, -fy·ing.
1. to render or declare legally void or inoperative: to nullify a contract.
2. to deprive (something) of value or effectiveness; make futile or of no consequence.

and

nul·li·fy (nŭl'ə-fī')
tr.v. nul·li·fied , nul·li·fy·ing , nul·li·fies
1. To make null; invalidate.
2. To counteract the force or effectiveness of.

Hm. Yeah.

I want to know how they feel about the voters out there whose moral and religious views actually allow them to support gay marriage? Yes, there are people out there like that, did these people forget that or not realize that? Do those voters not matter? And if so, how do they intend to reconcile that? And if religious people who are anti-gay marriage can be taught to love and respect homosexuals, why is it so freakin' hard for them to support gay marriage, then?!?! I don't understand. Not to mention, God gave everyone free will, right? Well, gay people are simply exercising said free will, in "choosing" to be gay, as these people seem to think is the way it's done, and choosing to get married. Wouldn't the religious people trying to stop this be overriding their free will, therefore overriding what God allows?

Gah. This whole thing's just so insane and confusing and stupid. I hope the anti-gay crowd loses this fight, and loses it big. I wish I lived out in California, I'd gladly be marching alongside the pro-gay marriage people.

Angela