The sacred institution of marriage...

[U2democrat]

Sent from a friend:

Sanctity of Marriage - read to the bottom

Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan, who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.

Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.

Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.

Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced

Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced

Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced

Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced

George Will - divorced

Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced

Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.

Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr...WHICH marriage are you defending?!?

Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced

Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)

Sen. George Allen of Virginia - divorced

Henry Kissinger - divorced

Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced

Sen. John McCain of Arizonia - divorced

Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced

Rep. Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker - divorced

So ... homosexuals are going to destroy the institution of marriage? Wait a minute, it seems the Christian Heterosexual Republicans are doing a fine job without anyone's help!

 

[BVS]

"Defense of Marriage Act" really has nothing with protecting the institution of marriage it just sounded a lot better than the "Bigot Act".

 

[anitram]

"Defense of Marriage Act" really has nothing with protecting the institution of marriage it just sounded a lot better than the "Bigot Act".

Heh:

"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."

In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"

If it looks like a duck...

 

[BVS]

In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"

Yeah I hate to say it but, yes...

 

[Angela Harlem]

Why so little response to this?

gloat, gloat, gloat...etc

 

[Irvine511]

... and Bill Clinton remains married to his first and onlywife to this day.

just sayin' ...

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Here is a question on the whole issue of what is the definition of a marriage. Heterosexual imediate adult family members, uncles and aunts and first cousins are not allowed to marry, because of the obvious birth defects that can result in any offspring. But, when were talking about say, a homosexual adult son and his homosexual adult father getting married, and the issue of biological birth is not there, should this be allowed? What about homosexual first cousins?

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

Two names...

Bono and Ali.

'nuff said.

 

[BVS]

Here is a question on the whole issue of what is the definition of a marriage. Heterosexual imediate adult family members, uncles and aunts and first cousins are not allowed to marry, because of the obvious birth defects that can result in any offspring. But, when were talking about say, a homosexual adult son and his homosexual adult father getting married, and the issue of biological birth is not there, should this be allowed? What about homosexual first cousins?

What the hell does this have to do with anything?

 

[BVS]

Two names...

Bono and Ali.

'nuff said.

I think you're missing the point...

 

[INDY500]

Is the premise, that merely defending the status quo of a tradition that dates back thousands of years makes one a bigot?

I can understand the hesitation to amend the constitution, but 37 states have now enacted laws to bar same-sex marriage and there aren't that many RED states. In addition, the 1996 Defense Of Marriage Act was approved in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 85-15 (including 32 Democrats) and signed into law by Bill Clinton.

All bigots as well? So if that's the premise, I would disagree.

 

[BVS]

Is the premise, that merely defending the status quo of a tradition that dates back thousands of years makes one a bigot?

Slavery was a time honored tradition as well, should we have kept that just because it was status quo?

 

[AliEnvy]

Is the premise, that merely defending the status quo of a tradition that dates back thousands of years makes one a bigot?

I guess that would be about the same as defending the status quo of slavery back in the day.

Yes, it made one a bigot then as it does now in this situation.

 

[AliEnvy]

Jinx

 

[INDY500]

Jinx

Now don't team up on me with your talking points.

I wouldn't be so quick to analogize the hardships and discriminations experienced by any group in America today with the kidnapping and animalistic transport of blacks from Africa. Who then were stripped of their language, culture and identity and treated to 100+ years of systemic exploitation and economic subjugation.

You can compare the "bigotry" of those who oppose same-sex marriage with the physical and cultural brutality of slavery if you choose, but I wouldn't.

 

[toscano]

Now don't team up on me with your talking points.

I wouldn't be so quick to analogize the hardships and discriminations experienced by any group in America today with the kidnapping and animalistic transport of blacks from Africa. Who then were stripped of their language, culture and identity and treated to 100+ years of systemic exploitation and economic subjugation.

You can compare the "bigotry" of those who oppose same-sex marriage with the physical and cultural brutality of slavery if you choose, but I wouldn't.

 

[BVS]

You can compare the "bigotry" of those who oppose same-sex marriage with the physical and cultural brutality of slavery if you choose, but I wouldn't.

I wasn't comparing the bigotry of the two. I was showing you where your logic was flawed. You can't use status quo as a means to deny certain groups. That's ridiculous.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

What the hell does this have to do with anything?

Its just a question related to the general topic, is that allowed?

 

[BVS]

Its just a question related to the general topic, is that allowed?

Well it's an off topic tangent. We try to avoid those. But to answer your question; incest is incest, I'm sure it wouldn't be legal. Incest isn't legal amongst heterosexuals who aren't going to reproduce, so the reproduction factor really doesn't matter.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Well it's an off topic tangent. We try to avoid those. But to answer your question; incest is incest, I'm sure it wouldn't be legal. Incest isn't legal amongst heterosexuals who aren't going to reproduce, so the reproduction factor really doesn't matter.

I think its understood under the law that there is always a chance that reproduction could occur even if the individuals were not trying to reproduce, which I think is the first reason such a relationship within a family is always considered to be illegal. As repulsive as incest is, some would consider homosexual acts as being just as repulsive. So getting beyond what many people consider to be repulsive, one of the first reasons its against the law to engage in that behavior is the potential reproductive consequences. But in a case where you have two consenting adults who are homosexual and happen to be immediate family members or 1st cousins, there are no reproductive consequences from the behavior. I think if Gay Marriage becomes legal and accepted across the country, this is a question that people will have to deal with. Many of the arguements used to defend Gay Marriage might also be used to defend Gay adult couples who are also close family members.

 

[BVS]

I think its understood under the law that there is always a chance that reproduction could occur even if the individuals were not trying to reproduce, which I think is the first reason such a relationship within a family is always considered to be illegal. As repulsive as incest is, some would consider homosexual acts as being just as repulsive. So getting beyond what many people consider to be repulsive, one of the first reasons its against the law to engage in that behavior is the potential reproductive consequences. But in a case where you have two consenting adults who are homosexual and happen to be immediate family members or 1st cousins, there are no reproductive consequences from the behavior. I think if Gay Marriage becomes legal and accepted across the country, this is a question that people will have to deal with. Many of the arguements used to defend Gay Marriage might also be used to defend Gay adult couples who are also close family members.

It's a weak argument. Incredibly weak. And ever since the beginning of these debates people have tried to use incest as a means to stop gay marriage. But think about this, first of all there's scientific debate about the birth defects in the first place, also if someone wanted to push for incest marriage they could prove they weren't capable of reproduction through surgery, then there is no "always a chance" argument.

So honestly the argument is weak.

 

[indra]

Is the premise, that merely defending the status quo of a tradition that dates back thousands of years makes one a bigot?

Well, it does.

 

[INDY500]

I wasn't comparing the bigotry of the two. I was showing you where your logic was flawed. You can't use status quo as a means to deny certain groups. That's ridiculous.

Fair enough, but what of the premise raised on this thread? That opposing same-sex marriage is a form of bigotry.
Is everyone opposed to gay marriage a bigot?
Are there absolutely no valid or sound arguments that can be made in the defense of traditional marriage or are they all rooted in hatred and fear?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Polygamy is a form of traditional marriage and usually heterosexual at that, does that fall under the label traditional marriage?

 

[BVS]

Are there absolutely no valid or sound arguments that can be made in the defense of traditional marriage or are they all rooted in hatred and fear?

Not one valid or sound argument. Not one.

 

[INDY500]

Polygamy is a form of traditional marriage and usually heterosexual at that, does that fall under the label traditional marriage?

Not according to The Defense of Marriage Act as signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. It recognizes only the union between one man and one woman. So if you're an American citizen the answer is no.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well thats not right, individuals should have the right to enter into a legally binding union regardless of sex or number, if they are all consenting parties who retain their rights - by enforcing a "traditional" marriage same as that defined by one set of religious views it is stepping on the toes of those who's beliefs or ethics don't match, to a degree it is granting recognition for a particular religion based viewpoint.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

It's a weak argument. Incredibly weak. And ever since the beginning of these debates people have tried to use incest as a means to stop gay marriage. But think about this, first of all there's scientific debate about the birth defects in the first place, also if someone wanted to push for incest marriage they could prove they weren't capable of reproduction through surgery, then there is no "always a chance" argument.

So honestly the argument is weak.

Well, then in any case where consenting adult family members want to get married and there is no chance for there to be reproduction, either because of surgery or the couple was gay, how would you legally argue against such unions? A Gay person argues they were born this way and this is who they are attracted to and they should be allowed to marry such people. Thats understandable, but then how do you tell a Gay adult Uncle that he can't marry his Gay adult Nephew. Their both adults and this is the way they feel. With birth defects, religion, and ones own repulsiveness to such a union taken out of the picture, how would you argue against such unions?

 

[A_Wanderer]

On the basis that they rarely occur and that you are conflating different issues with different logical bounds, homosexuality is not the same as incest - if you want a comparison then childless couples make the most sense, and if you allow gay adoption and access to assisted reproduction then that comparison may not be accurate.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

On the basis that they rarely occur and that you are conflating different issues with different logical bounds, homosexuality is not the same as incest - if you want a comparison then childless couples make the most sense, and if you allow gay adoption and access to assisted reproduction then that comparison may not be accurate.

So your going to tell a Gay adult Uncle and his Gay adult nephew that they can't get married because it "rarely happens" and "homosexuality is not the same as incest"? I think the best arguement in these cases is the issue of birth defects of potential offspring, but in this situation that is not possible. There is the whole "its illegal because its a threat to "domestic peace", but that is often sited in arguements against homosexual marriage.