Let There Be Fear –
Fears rogue states and terrorists could exploit presidential handover
American officials fear rogue states, terrorist groups and even some of their allies may exploit the 11 week gap between Barack Obama’s election victory and his formal inauguration.
The existing laws regarding marriage (one man, one woman) do not discriminate against gays. As the law stands gays are free to marry, they must marry someone of the opposite sex. But they are nevertheless free to marry.
Never a dull moment in the blogosphere is there?
Who knows? Maybe the Grey Aliens might invade to take advantage of the confusion! Maybe Nicaragua is going to attack Hawaii! Maybe all Great Apes in captivity are suddenly going to escape and overrun North America!
I wouldn’t call it “stupid”. I would call it an argument that wouldn’t hold up to a matchstick in the breeze coming from an infant’s mouth.
“One Man-One Woman” marriage laws unfairly discriminate neither against gays (after all, I am a heterozexual man married to a heterosexual woman and we are both gay from time to time. Gaiety is not in fact as often associated with homosexuality as with heterosexuality) nor homosexuals. When homosexuals can naturally procreate within a homosexual relationship, then society should visit the idea of licensing the marriage of homosexuals. Until then, it is no more unfair discrimination to disallow marriage between persons of the same sex than to disallow marriage between a man and his dog. Neither “union” can produce offspring. Anyone unable to get their mind around the reasonable connection between procreation and marriage has a mind so open and so small that while anything can enter, nothing can stay long.
All the sturm und drang, weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth about “unfair discrimination” by homosexuals who falsely call themselves “gay” is pathetic but no more persuasive than when toddlers throw tantrums.
Your argument implicitly defines exclusionary criteria for the relationship that you call marriage, then applies them as thought they were universal.
You’re perfectly entitled to do that, of course, but your personal views on what does and doesn’t consitute a “marriage”, while interesting from the perspective of primitive anthropology, are irrelevant.
I find the procreation argument one that has a lot difficulty standing on it’s own supposedly heterosexual merits.
If procreation is the idea behind marriage then how does society address the heterosexual couple who, for any number of biological reasons, cannot procreate? How does society address the heterosexual couple who chooses not to procreate?
Marriage is a private contractual relationship between two (and sometimes more) consenting individuals. That is why lawyers and the courts are involved when one, or even both, parties to the contract seek to remove themselves from it.
I had thought that you were a non authoritarian David, I’m guess you have abandoned that.
You would agree, then, it is no more unfair discrimination to disallow marriage between persons of the same sex than to disallow marriage including a post-menopausal woman or a vasectomized man, severely disabled and infertile individuals, sexagenarians, septuagenarians, octagenarians. None of these “unions” can produce offspring.
Hi Stageleft. How are you doing today? I am on the pro-marriage between one man and one woman side of this argument. Why? I believe that is the way God meant for marriage to be. Also, if everyone were homosexual, we would disappear within 2-3 generations. Still love ya, though! ;)
If I read you right Rosemary you are advocating that religious theology be entrenched law - is that correct?
I find that interesting, because when other parts of the world do that sort of thing us uppity westerners tend to laugh and point our fingers at them…… and then label them dangerous.
Please expand on your thought there. Why would you think everyone would, or might, be or become homosexual?
Yes, I think we all know what “God” thinks about homosexuals. But word on the street is that He created them so that they could sit on the sidelines and watch their social betters enjoy the luxuries we take for granted. Thank God He made me straight. He must love me.
Rosemary, I already asked your god what he thought of gay marriage, and he said, “Fine,” so I don’t know where you get the idea that he meant for marriage to be a restricted club.
And my gods are all for it.
So what’s your problem?
Her problem is that once Gay Marriage is accepted by society, we will all spontaneously burst into flaming homosexuality.
Imagine the havoc this could wreak - especially for those of us who are not, ahem, physically accustomed to it. People will get cranky, thats for sure.
Rosemary just wants to save us all from ourselves…and each other.
That and prevent the extinction of the human race.
The answer to Rosemarie’s dilemma is simple. As a believer in marriage between a man and a woman, she should refrain from marrying women.
Golly, I wish all moral questions were as easy.