The Conservative Case FOR Gar Marriage

[knuckleboner]

Realistically, if somebody can make me an argument against gay marriage that is NOT based on religion, I'd be happy to listen to it.

I haven't met one person against gay marriage that has ever been able to do that.

i think it goes like this: "i think gay people are icky. (unless i'm a male, in which case i just think that gay men and those dyke-y looking women are icky.)"

[Nickdfresh]

The concept of the "tyranny of the majority" was something acknowledged by the framers of the Constitution...

[bueno bob]

i think it goes like this: "i think gay people are icky. (unless i'm a male, in which case i just think that gay men and those dyke-y looking women are icky.)"

Sounds about right...of course, it's neither a rational nor legitimate argument, so...

[jhale667]

Realistically, if somebody can make me an argument against gay marriage that is NOT based on religion, I'd be happy to listen to it.

I haven't met one person against gay marriage that has ever been able to do that.

Exactly. That's what I want someone to tell me without the religious diatribe, or "the children" or whatever, and tell me why I'm supposed to be against it.

[bueno bob]

Exactly. That's what I want someone to tell me without the religious diatribe, or "the children" or whatever, and tell me why I'm supposed to be against it.

Well, the whole notion of marriage has it's origin in religion, anyway, and it was adapted over the years to fit in with those who didn't subscribe to a particular religion, which is where non-denominational marriages by a county clerk came on the scene. Those are called "MARRIAGES" and they're just as legally binding (pro and con) as a religious marriage, so taking religion out of the mix, by default there's no legitimate argument against gay marriage.

None.

I mean, unless you're going to subscribe to that "It'll lead to incestual marriage and people marrying furniture and animals!!!" hysteria, than nobody has a rational argument against 'what it'll lead to' either. It's not exactly a gateway drug or some shit...

[ZahZoo]

Well, the whole notion of marriage has it's origin in religion, anyway, and it was adapted over the years to fit in with those who didn't subscribe to a particular religion, which is where non-denominational marriages by a county clerk came on the scene. Those are called "MARRIAGES" and they're just as legally binding (pro and con) as a religious marriage, so taking religion out of the mix, by default there's no legitimate argument against gay marriage.

None

You're on the right track but marriage stems from something that even predates western religion... it's roots have little to do with love between two people, making babies and setting up camp together. It stems from the rules which evolved into laws concerning property rights with this union of people. Remember it wasn't too long ago that a wife was considered "the property" of the husband, plus the wife would assume inheritance from her new family and give up rights to her birth family. Along with this came dawries and even for certain periods marriage was treated more like corporate mergers among wealthy or powerful entities.

The thing was a lot of all this evolved from cultures that also made up religion to suit their needs and it got mixed up in all that crap. From a western perspective... the various churches in play the last couple thousands of years also acted as the primary legal systems ruling the masses.

While everyone focuses on the ceremonies, rituals and human elements... most people don't even realize that 15 minutes trip to the county clerk to fill out some forms... they are entering into one of the most complex legal contracts they'll ever imagine. Plus whoever presides over the ceremony... priest, rabi, minister, etc... they have to have a license too... they are acting as an agent of the state to finalize the Contract.

The argument here isn't about homo's it's about the equal application of law under the US constitution. In that context... I haven't heard a viable argument against it...

[Seshmeister]

It's not just money though. If say you have a homo couple and one gets sick and is in hospital his partner even if they have lived together for 30 years has no rights to visit them or give consent to procedures and so on. Now there are more of these couples getting old they want the security of knowing that someone has their back... so to speak.

[knuckleboner]

Sounds about right...of course, it's neither a rational nor legitimate argument, so...

hey now, you never asked for a logical reason.

but i believe i can supply that one, too: some people are prejudiced...

[jhale667]

Interesting article on the judge's so-called "bias"

Would a Black Judge Have Been Biased in Brown v. Board of Education?

by Cenk Uygur

US District Judge Vaughn Walker is the judge who issued the ruling that Prop 8, which bans same sex marriage in California, is unconstitutional. Conservatives are now claiming that he is gay (which is unconfirmed at this point) and that his gayness presents an obvious bias. Furthermore, he should have recused himself from the case because as a gay man he would have a conflict of interest in deciding a case on gay rights.

The obvious question is - would a straight man not have a bias? Prop 8 would maintain straight people's monopoly on marriage. Wouldn't a straight person have a conflict of interest in deciding a case about whether they get to have more rights than other people in society? Presumably a lot of straight people voted in California to take away the right of gay people to get married - wouldn't they be biased in favor of protecting their own rights and taking away the rights of gays in California?

How about a devoutly religious judge? If that person believes it is an abomination against God to have gay people get married, wouldn't that create an obvious bias? Should we look into how religious each judge is before we let them decide cases like this? How about Antonin Scalia, who has on many occasions talked about how deeply religious he is? Should he be recused if this case reaches the Supreme Court? Clarence Thomas? Samuel Alito? How many justices will be left to decide this case?

Now, let's think about it a different way. What if there was a black justice on the Supreme Court when they were deciding Brown v. Board of Education? Would he be biased in favor of having the same rights as white Americans? Should he have stepped down from the case because he would obviously want the same constitutional rights as any other American? Bias!!

Of course, there was a black man in the courtroom at the time. The man who was the winning attorney on Brown v. Board of Education and would later become the first ever African-American justice on the Supreme Court - Thurgood Marshall. Should the court have told him that he couldn't litigate the case because it would be biased of him to want the same rights as white people?

Should Marshall have also recused himself from every case that involved race when he was on the Supreme Court? If so, why did the white justices get to rule on those cases?

As you can see, although the bias argument might seem appealing at first blush to some, it is quite absurd when you break it down. If you're not already convinced, let me give you one last example. What if California decided to take away women's right to vote - could a female justice not rule on that case because they would be biased in favor of keeping their own constitutional rights?

But you don't have to worry about these absurd right-wing arguments for much longer because conservatives will lose this battle, as they have lost every right civil rights battle they have ever fought in this country. As I explain here:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VQBrAtwVq0w&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?color1=0x006699& amp;color2=0x54abd6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VQBrAtwVq0w&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?color1=0x006699& amp;color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

And as far as whether being gay is an abomination and ruins the institution of marriage, I want you to think about this:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6yCWVnQ_u84&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?color1=0x006699& amp;color2=0x54abd6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6yCWVnQ_u84&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?color1=0x006699& amp;color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

As Judge Walker meticulously explained, there are no rational arguments in favor of denying gay Americans the same rights that straight Americans enjoy. Only irrational ones, like the one that says that it is biased for a gay man in this country to ask for equal protection under the law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/would-a-black-judge-have_b_675152.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=080910&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry

[BigBadBrian]

Exactly. That's what I want someone to tell me without the religious diatribe, or "the children" or whatever, and tell me why I'm supposed to be against it.

Just look at how you and your butt-buddy DumbAsARock69 turned out, that's why.

Also NicktheDick always following DoucheMmachine around and giving him a reacharound.

Those are two prime examples right there!

[FORD]

Judge Walker may or may not be gay. He also might be a literal member of the BCE. Prescott Bush was married to Dorothy Walker, and her father, George Herbert Walker, is whom Poppy and Chimpy were both named after. So this judge, appointed by Poppy himself, was most probably one of his cousins.

And Ted Olson's resume with the BCE is well known.

Face it right wingers, even your own kind are waking up to the reality that civil rights should apply to all people. (though some other right wingers are still trying to exclude Muslims and Mexicans, but that's another discussion entirely.)

[Dr. Love]

"Loud-Mouthed Women"???

That's quite a list!
Druggie's
Drunkard's
Adulterer's
Fornicator's
Gambler's
Pervert's

.......well, it looks like these people have decided my fate for me...I'm going to Hell's

They left "retard's" off the list, so you should be safe.

[GAR]

Face it right wingers, even your own kind are waking up to the reality that civil rights should apply to all people.

Why give extra-civil rights to some, but not to all>? Don't the pedophiles have a claim of damage here, by not recognizing their Constitutionally guaranteed right to happiness by stalking playgrounds? Don't the serial killers have a right to the happiness they obtain from a good night bathing themselves in blood?

Don't the animal friendly have a right to marry say, a horse, a goat, a SheepPen Person or any other living creature?

Originally you make a home for children. The only children the Gays get to birth is a turd-gurglette.. which needs only a toilet not a crib.

[jhale667]

That wasn't you self-loathing AT ALL, was it?

Just look at how you and your butt-buddy DumbAsARock69 turned out, that's why.

Also NicktheDick always following DoucheMmachine around and giving him a reacharound.

Those are two prime examples right there!

Oh, looked the closeted hater shows up to put in his .02 for (self) hate....dude, quit projecting and COME OUT OF THE CLOSET ALREADY...

Filed under the "wishing it won't make it so" department...FOR THE LAST TIME, we don't play that way...your advances were flattering at first but now you're just being a queen-bitch... you probably DO have a shot with GAyR though, FYI.


No, keep telling yourself you're straight (you may even convince yourself with that lie someday, but no one here's buying it...LOL) , and that you don't post like a maladjusted, self-hate-filled peabrain...

[FORD]

Originally you make a home for children. The only children the Gays get to birth is a turd-gurglette.. which needs only a toilet not a crib.

It still REALLY gets to you that the love of your life (Jizzy) dumped you and had a child with a woman, doesn't it?