Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, December 2, 2009
Homo "You cannot legislate morality, but you can legislate justice."
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM
New York's state senate is debating a marriage equality bill right now. A vote is imminent. The other house of NY's legislature—the State Assembly—has passed a marriage equality bill three times (once again last night for emphasis), and NY's governor has pledged to sign the bill into law just as soon as the NY state senate passes it. Towleroad is all over it—and you can watch the live feed below...
Watch live streaming video from nysenate at livestream.com
Openly gay NY state Senator Tom Duane: "The time is never right for civil rights. The economy, wars. The troubles we've had here in the senate. It's never ever the right time. But the paradox is, it's always the time to be on the right side of history." Duane wraps up by telling his colleagues he's an old gay, one who is aging gracefully (along with his new gay hip), but he hopes that after today's vote he will be a married gay. The vote begins now.
We're on the Ms now and it's impossible to hear how most of the senators are voting.
The voting seems to be over... but no one is saying anything...
"The bill is lost." Marriage Equality does not come to New York State. The vote was 38 to 24—not even close. Hard to see this as anything other than fallout from Maine. And props to the D.C.'s city council.
3
Here's hoping my home state's notoriously dysfunctional pile of sleaze masquerading as a legislature manages to do something right for a change!
5
Loveschild-
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
6
24-38, no equality for NY State in spite of majority support for equality.
8 "nay" Senators reside in districts with majority support for marriage equality.
8 "nay" Senators reside in districts with majority support for marriage equality.
7
I see there's a lot of Democrats that don't deserve re-election in New York State.
Time to primary these bastards.
Time to primary these bastards.
8
I just watched that.... it's so obscene to see people putting rights to a vote. I am so fucking glad I don't live in that fucked up country.
9
I noticed that, with the exception of Senator Diaz, none of the "no" votes spoke up during the debate. They did not wish to explain their vote.
What a bunch of cowardly assholes.
A sad day for America.
What a bunch of cowardly assholes.
A sad day for America.
10
@7: All of them live in places with majority support for marriage equality, and several of the republicans do.
In the words of Loveschild, "let the people decide" -- vote these people out. It's just like her and her kind did when they ran ads opposing supporters of SB5688 here in WA State and when NOM threatened to run thousands against any senator voting "yea".
In the words of Loveschild, "let the people decide" -- vote these people out. It's just like her and her kind did when they ran ads opposing supporters of SB5688 here in WA State and when NOM threatened to run thousands against any senator voting "yea".
12
Yay! as it should've, for bills as cotroversial as this one to pass into law the people need to be allowed to have their input and say.
14
If you wait around for elected politicians to do the right thing on this it will never happen. Take it to court. With enough court decisions upholding marriage equality, the legislatures won't have any choice but to fix the laws. That's what worked in Canada - where all y'all are more than welcome to come up and get married for real.
16
Baconcat, Loveschild believes the people should only decide when the people decide the way she thinks they should. When democracy goes against what Loveschild wants, she'll be opposed to democracy. Because, you know, Loveschild doesn't really believe in democracy.
17
Oh shut the fuck up, you bigoted bitch. Go gloat with your Bible. I'm so tired of your bigotry. People like you literally make me sick. I'm 19 years old and I'm more compassionate and responsible for others than you'll ever be in your sorry, narrow life. You've lost countless opportunities to meet amazing, caring, and valuable friends by isolating yourself based on a book of fairy tales for adults. Have fun in your miserable little shell.
18
@13: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0…
I wonder how we lost several GOP equality votes that were planning to vote "yea", Loveschild? And why NOM was calling several Dem Senators in fringe districts? And why NOM has been working with Senator Diaz? And why Senators Skelos and Monserrate flipped so hard?
Don't fake sincerity or morality on this one. And remember: you know for a fact that this can't be put to a public vote, so don't even front.
We will overcome.
Even if we have to play your little game.
I wonder how we lost several GOP equality votes that were planning to vote "yea", Loveschild? And why NOM was calling several Dem Senators in fringe districts? And why NOM has been working with Senator Diaz? And why Senators Skelos and Monserrate flipped so hard?
Don't fake sincerity or morality on this one. And remember: you know for a fact that this can't be put to a public vote, so don't even front.
We will overcome.
Even if we have to play your little game.
19
@14
No one is denying any one their human rights, people who identify themselves as gays can still do so right now in NY, they can engage in whatever they want and no one can stop them. That doesn't mean that basic societal institutions should be redefine by a small group of people while denying the rest of us our right to voice our opinion and voices in the ballot box because when you deny us that then that does constitute a violation of the people's human rights as guarantee under the Constitution of our nation.
We have freedoms, responsibilities and a system thru the people to redefine or preserve our institutions. Bring it to the people, if you want to legitimize the societal redefinitions you seek.
No one is denying any one their human rights, people who identify themselves as gays can still do so right now in NY, they can engage in whatever they want and no one can stop them. That doesn't mean that basic societal institutions should be redefine by a small group of people while denying the rest of us our right to voice our opinion and voices in the ballot box because when you deny us that then that does constitute a violation of the people's human rights as guarantee under the Constitution of our nation.
We have freedoms, responsibilities and a system thru the people to redefine or preserve our institutions. Bring it to the people, if you want to legitimize the societal redefinitions you seek.
20
@14
No one is denying any one their human rights, people who identify themselves as gays can still do so right now in NY, they can engage in whatever they want and no one can stop them. That doesn't mean that basic societal institutions should be redefine by a small group of people while denying the rest of us our right to voice our opinion and voices in the ballot box because when you deny us that then that does constitute a violation of the people's human rights as guarantee under the Constitution of our nation.
We have freedoms, responsibilities and a system thru the people to redefine or preserve our institutions. Bring it to the people.
No one is denying any one their human rights, people who identify themselves as gays can still do so right now in NY, they can engage in whatever they want and no one can stop them. That doesn't mean that basic societal institutions should be redefine by a small group of people while denying the rest of us our right to voice our opinion and voices in the ballot box because when you deny us that then that does constitute a violation of the people's human rights as guarantee under the Constitution of our nation.
We have freedoms, responsibilities and a system thru the people to redefine or preserve our institutions. Bring it to the people.
21
We are denied equal RIGHTS and EQUAL PROTECTIONS. In New York, in Washington state, in Maine, etc., etc. We are free to come out. We are denied, however, equal protections under the law.
Kind of like people were free to be black under Jim Crow in the South, LC, just denied the right to eat where they wanted, stay in hotels, vote, etc. But they were totally free to "engage in being" black.
Kind of like people were free to be black under Jim Crow in the South, LC, just denied the right to eat where they wanted, stay in hotels, vote, etc. But they were totally free to "engage in being" black.
23
@20: New York doesn't have direct democracy and has only put forth 4 ballot proposals in the past 10 years. You know they don't have an I&R process or a method for the assembly or senate to propose ballot measures, and only NYC (and maybe Buffalo?) have ways of letting the people vote on administrative issues.
"Let the people decide" is a red herring. And you know it.
"Let the people decide" is a red herring. And you know it.
24
@22: Voters in Washington State overwhelmingly approved an initiative that ended affirmative action in this state.
So even in WA State...
So even in WA State...
25
@18
Fine, force it at your own defeat, because if you do (and I am hoping you do) a Constitutional amendment will be implemented.
Time and time again this has been brought up to the NY senate and time and time again it has been repelled, the people of NY state as those of NJ and DC don't want it but you want to force it down their throats.
A Constitutional amendment is the only way to put this down to rest until finally understand that we are not a monarchy as Dingo's homeland, we the people have the final say not on what you do in your house or with your partner that's your right but on what our institutions, i-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-s mean. Thirty one states thru the ballot box have made that clear, and the only place where you have succeeded you have done it thru the court, and politicians that are not hold accountable (like any good monarchy isn't hold accountable for an arbitrary ruling) Marie Antoinette has been brought to the guillotine today in NY.
Fine, force it at your own defeat, because if you do (and I am hoping you do) a Constitutional amendment will be implemented.
Time and time again this has been brought up to the NY senate and time and time again it has been repelled, the people of NY state as those of NJ and DC don't want it but you want to force it down their throats.
A Constitutional amendment is the only way to put this down to rest until finally understand that we are not a monarchy as Dingo's homeland, we the people have the final say not on what you do in your house or with your partner that's your right but on what our institutions, i-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-s mean. Thirty one states thru the ballot box have made that clear, and the only place where you have succeeded you have done it thru the court, and politicians that are not hold accountable (like any good monarchy isn't hold accountable for an arbitrary ruling) Marie Antoinette has been brought to the guillotine today in NY.
26
Loveschild, I am sorry, but the fact that you cannot even take a principled moral position on whether gays and lesbians in another country should be subjected to genocidal legislation actually tells us everything about your sense of morality that we need to know. It really, truly does.
27
@25: "we the people have the final say not on what you do... with your partner"
Unless of course you want to MARRY your partner. We're all over that.
Unless of course you want to MARRY your partner. We're all over that.
28
Any people not in favour of gay marriage are moronic retards. Loveschild is living breathing proof of this
29
@Baconcat
And there's always Proposition 209 as well as affirmative action being voted down in my home state of Michigan.
No, Loveschild, we are not a monarchy, we are a democratic republic. "The people" vote on their legislators and the legislators vote according to both their constituencies and their own conscience.
Mob rule such as you propose has killed many a wise man. Holy men, even.
And there's always Proposition 209 as well as affirmative action being voted down in my home state of Michigan.
No, Loveschild, we are not a monarchy, we are a democratic republic. "The people" vote on their legislators and the legislators vote according to both their constituencies and their own conscience.
Mob rule such as you propose has killed many a wise man. Holy men, even.
30
Loveschild, you keep dredging up Marie Antoinette and talking about how this is not a monarchy, and yet you insist at the same time that it's all about your rights, that we must all submit to your will and that you can impose on the world your beliefs.
Be honest for a change. The truth is you want this to be a monarchy...with you in charge. How's that cake taste?
Be honest for a change. The truth is you want this to be a monarchy...with you in charge. How's that cake taste?
31
@25: Nope, they can't put it to a vote and you know this. Also, the assembly will crush any constitutional amendment.
The Senate which is not related to population is under the control of the Upstate region (even though the center of population for NY State is just across the river from NYC, and even then, several GOP members out there are in districts that favor via plurality or majority marriage equality.
Don't forget in your Marie Antoinette analogy that those who fomented the revolution, the Girondists and Jacobins, those who bankrolled it and gloated upon the death of the royal family, were the ones who suffered the most.
The Senate which is not related to population is under the control of the Upstate region (even though the center of population for NY State is just across the river from NYC, and even then, several GOP members out there are in districts that favor via plurality or majority marriage equality.
Don't forget in your Marie Antoinette analogy that those who fomented the revolution, the Girondists and Jacobins, those who bankrolled it and gloated upon the death of the royal family, were the ones who suffered the most.
32
Dan, will you call for a boycott of New York?
It took a lot of Democrats to defeat this-
Will you call for a boycott of the Democratic Party?
Are Democrats Asshole Bigots?
It took a lot of Democrats to defeat this-
Will you call for a boycott of the Democratic Party?
Are Democrats Asshole Bigots?
33
@8
I'm sure your country has no flaws whatsoever (yeah rite). And you certainly seem to spend a lot of time on a blog that's based in such a "fucked up country." Funny how that is.
I'm sure your country has no flaws whatsoever (yeah rite). And you certainly seem to spend a lot of time on a blog that's based in such a "fucked up country." Funny how that is.
34
Enjoy your DC vote while you can.
Congress will be shoving it up your ass in a few weeks.
It will be a great chance to put a lot of members of Congress on the record.
Members from the 31 states that have already voted to outlaw homosexual marriage.
Some by as much as 80%.
Congress will be shoving it up your ass in a few weeks.
It will be a great chance to put a lot of members of Congress on the record.
Members from the 31 states that have already voted to outlaw homosexual marriage.
Some by as much as 80%.
35
@29 Hold up there for one moment,
Are you comparing gay marriage with the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ?
Are you comparing gay marriage with the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ?
36
Loveschild, what is your understanding of the institution of marriage, in both historical and contemporary contexts? I would really like to know what you think a marriage is, how those in such a union relate to each other, how that union relates to the society as a whole, and the way society as a whole relates to that union. What contributions does a marriage make to society? What responsibilities does a marriage (and by extension those in it) have to society? And what contributions does society have to make to a marriage? What responsibilities does society have for that marriage? I understand that these are not questions that lead to short answers, but anything you can say to answer them would be greatly appreciated.
37
@21
No one is denying you to engage in homosexual acts or proclaiming you're gay, no one.
But you have no right to arbitrarily decide on what societal institutions mean that is made by the society = the people.
You can decide on what your relationship means in your house or in your daily life not or institutions that are implemented by and serve society for a specific purpose.
You want to make this about you being somehow 'attacked' and that is disingenuous of you, it's like the boy who cried wolf.
No one is denying you to engage in homosexual acts or proclaiming you're gay, no one.
But you have no right to arbitrarily decide on what societal institutions mean that is made by the society = the people.
You can decide on what your relationship means in your house or in your daily life not or institutions that are implemented by and serve society for a specific purpose.
You want to make this about you being somehow 'attacked' and that is disingenuous of you, it's like the boy who cried wolf.
38
My "homeland" (by which I assume you're talking about Canada) is NOT a monarchy. It's a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy whose queen is the titular head of state but who has a mainly ceremonial role. Canadian people have the final say on what happens with their institutions via their democratic representatives too.
Just like in the States, same-sex marriage was originally legalized in Canada as a result of court cases that ruled existing bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage became legal across the country via a bill that was voted on in Parliament. Had that bill failed, certain provinces and territories would not have had same-sex marriage, but court challenges would have continued, bringing about the same result.
Parliament could have passed a new law explicitly restricting marriage to opposite sex couples, or they could have ammended the Canadian constitution by inserting the clause "marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman", and in fact, Canada's Prime Minister wanted to do just that.
There are key differences in what happened in Canada and what's happening in the States. First, despite 80% of Canadians claiming to be Christian, Jewish or Muslim, when churches tried to get involved in the same-sex marriage debate there was a backlash from the general population, who recognize that religion has no place in politics. Second, there was a shift in public opinion, feelings, values, attitudes towards and beliefs about LGBT people that cut across all segments of the Canadian population such that, by 2004, a majority of Canadians supported same-sex marriages. In 1996, polls showed 47% opposed to same-sex marriage; by 2009, 61% were in favour of same-sex marriages.
Just like in the States, same-sex marriage was originally legalized in Canada as a result of court cases that ruled existing bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage became legal across the country via a bill that was voted on in Parliament. Had that bill failed, certain provinces and territories would not have had same-sex marriage, but court challenges would have continued, bringing about the same result.
Parliament could have passed a new law explicitly restricting marriage to opposite sex couples, or they could have ammended the Canadian constitution by inserting the clause "marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman", and in fact, Canada's Prime Minister wanted to do just that.
There are key differences in what happened in Canada and what's happening in the States. First, despite 80% of Canadians claiming to be Christian, Jewish or Muslim, when churches tried to get involved in the same-sex marriage debate there was a backlash from the general population, who recognize that religion has no place in politics. Second, there was a shift in public opinion, feelings, values, attitudes towards and beliefs about LGBT people that cut across all segments of the Canadian population such that, by 2004, a majority of Canadians supported same-sex marriages. In 1996, polls showed 47% opposed to same-sex marriage; by 2009, 61% were in favour of same-sex marriages.
39
And @33, my countries--plural, because I hold multiple citizenships--have plenty of flaws. Subjecting people's basic rights to a demeaning, dehumanizing vote, however, is not one of them. Neither is allowing politicians to get away with attempting to enshrine their religious beliefs into law.
40
@36 Creating and nourishing into adulthood new generations, no society exists without that basic pillar. And that pillar is only composed even when it's done in a laboratory (sperm + egg) by a man and a woman uniting.
Just because we find ourselves in a time were marriage has been harmed, mainly by sexual anything goes ideologies doesn't mean we should kill the institution. Because it does play an important role, it does to those who truly believe and observe it.
Look, if you hate marriage or think it's some antiquated vestige of by gone eras like Dan believes, and that it is something shackling, and that monogamy doesn't work and having open (multiple) partners is better for whatever relationship you have (as Dan believes) then by all means GO AHEAD, NO ONE IS STOPING YOU NOR SAVAGE FROM DOING SO. But you don't have any right to destroy marriage for the rest of us just because you don't believe in it.
Just because we find ourselves in a time were marriage has been harmed, mainly by sexual anything goes ideologies doesn't mean we should kill the institution. Because it does play an important role, it does to those who truly believe and observe it.
Look, if you hate marriage or think it's some antiquated vestige of by gone eras like Dan believes, and that it is something shackling, and that monogamy doesn't work and having open (multiple) partners is better for whatever relationship you have (as Dan believes) then by all means GO AHEAD, NO ONE IS STOPING YOU NOR SAVAGE FROM DOING SO. But you don't have any right to destroy marriage for the rest of us just because you don't believe in it.
41
@35
Loveschild, sweetie, I am actually a profane enough heretic and blasphemerto make that comparison but that's not what I was doing.
I was comparing the process of voting at the ballot box (on whatever issue that pertains to civil rights, of a sort) to other forms of...public juries such as the one you propose.
I was actually thinking much more of Socrates than Jesus. Just because "the people" vote on something doen't mean that their vote is "just." It was why Plato didn't like the mob rule known as Athenian democracy (not that I favor what Plato's alternative proposal was).
That's why we live in a representative democracy. Because people like you are ill-informed and bigoted.
Loveschild, sweetie, I am actually a profane enough heretic and blasphemerto make that comparison but that's not what I was doing.
I was comparing the process of voting at the ballot box (on whatever issue that pertains to civil rights, of a sort) to other forms of...public juries such as the one you propose.
I was actually thinking much more of Socrates than Jesus. Just because "the people" vote on something doen't mean that their vote is "just." It was why Plato didn't like the mob rule known as Athenian democracy (not that I favor what Plato's alternative proposal was).
That's why we live in a representative democracy. Because people like you are ill-informed and bigoted.
42
I'm really sorry to all the homosexuals in New York. I was really hoping they would show California how to do it, but apparently New York's got its own share of idiots to deal with.
43
@40:
So marriage isn't marriage unless it produces children, is that it? I look forward to you proposing laws banning marriage for the sterile or post-menopausal.
As to the "destruction" of marriage, I just don't see it. My straight, suburban, two kids and counting marriage seems to be in pretty good shape up here in the land of gay marriage, in spite of all the sodomites who have the same kind of marriage license that I do.
So marriage isn't marriage unless it produces children, is that it? I look forward to you proposing laws banning marriage for the sterile or post-menopausal.
As to the "destruction" of marriage, I just don't see it. My straight, suburban, two kids and counting marriage seems to be in pretty good shape up here in the land of gay marriage, in spite of all the sodomites who have the same kind of marriage license that I do.
44
@35:
I'd like to point out that Jesus, according to the Gospel, spent an awful lot of his time with people that upright/mainstream society at the time considered outcast / unclean / deviant or otherwise beneath them.
Food for thought. If there's a Second Coming, you're more likely to find him in the Castro with the 'mo's than in your church. Unless he's showing up to smash up the megachurches, because false piety and commerce in the house of God are about the only things that really (again, according to the Gospel) pissed him off.
I'd like to point out that Jesus, according to the Gospel, spent an awful lot of his time with people that upright/mainstream society at the time considered outcast / unclean / deviant or otherwise beneath them.
Food for thought. If there's a Second Coming, you're more likely to find him in the Castro with the 'mo's than in your church. Unless he's showing up to smash up the megachurches, because false piety and commerce in the house of God are about the only things that really (again, according to the Gospel) pissed him off.
45
If you actually knew about the person Jesus of Nazareth, read not just your translated into English Bible, but the Roman and Jewish antiquity records of his life, then you would know that you stand opposed to him and the Kingdom of God he proclaimed. He wasn't for the status in quo, he opposed tradition for tradition sake, he opposed inequality and injustice, his understanding of scripture flew in the face of the religious leaders of his day. Such was his unwillingness to compromise his vision, his moral position, that he was crucified for it. Dr. King knew him, Desmond Tutu knows him, Archbishop Romero knew him, Bonhoeffer knew him, but nothing you say here indicates that you know him, LC. You worship your "god" of proclaimed ethnic background, your "god" of traditional marriage, and in your worship you proclaim support for legislated genocide in Uganda and Jamaica because they are sovereign nations. In your worship you justify unequal treatment under the law. Your so blind that you don't even realize your standing in the mob and calling out for blood, Loveschild. And I grieve for you.
46
40 - I'm pretty sure Dan's gone on record saying he thinks 'there's something about marriage that works', and doesn't actually regard it as an outdated institution. Or hate it. You've disagreed with him repeatedly over his support for gay marriage so surely you've concluded by now that he and other proponents of marriage equality wouldn't actually want marriage rights extended to same-sex couples unless they liked the concept of marriage?
47
Gay Slogpost Scorecard
1 Point
__ Hillary Clinton "would have stood up for us"
__ Loveschild pre-emptively addressed
__ "Fierce Advocate" mentioned sarcastically
__ HIV/AIDS statistics
__ DADT/DOMA mentioned in relevant post
__ Ref 71 / Prop 8 / Question 1 mentioned in relevant post
2 Points
__ Loveschild blames white people
__ White people blame Loveschild
__ Obama connected with topic of post
__ Anonymous comment mentioning "53%"
__ Anonymous comment twisting Dan's comments (ex. "we're whining")
__ "Don't argue with Loveschild" / "Loveschild isn't real"
3 Points
__ Blame Obama
__ Blame religion
__ Blame Dan
__ Lonnie Lopez / ecce homo / Mr. Poe cameo
__ Loveschild calls Rob in Baltimore Racist
__ "Fierce Advocate" used obliviously by supporter
4 Points (x2 if all checked off)
__ Loveschild attacks Dan's family
__ Loveschild attacks colonialism
__ Loveschild attacks Kim
__ Loveschild attacks Dan
__ Loveschild attacks dead person
__ Loveschild defends Obama
__ Loveschild defends homophobia
__ Loveschild makes racist comment
5 Points
__ Godwin's Law
__ Poe's Law
10 Points
__ Loveschild agrees with Dan
We're up to 30 points in this thread.
48
@40 "But you don't have any right to destroy marriage for the rest of us just because you don't believe in it."
can you explain how same sex marriage "destroys" marriage, and give us some of the specific problems that this causes? Perhaps you can use the social disruption seen in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Canada to make your point.
can you explain how same sex marriage "destroys" marriage, and give us some of the specific problems that this causes? Perhaps you can use the social disruption seen in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Canada to make your point.
49
Look Lovechild
Don't talk to me about the need for family when blacks invented the term "babydaddy" in order to circumvent that thing so many of you dread- parenting
Don't lecture me on the right to vote on things like that- if we voted on segregation or curfew right now for people in CERTAIN groups it may just pass.
Some people believe homosexuals are a threat to deceny, some people think people cop killers and attackers of the elderly are. People in Seattle tend to believe cop killers and old-lady-attackers are more abhornent that homosexuals. I guess Ken Hutchinson doesn't agree since I don't hear him yapping right now about certain groups who are a threat to commuty standards.
Don't talk to me about the need for family when blacks invented the term "babydaddy" in order to circumvent that thing so many of you dread- parenting
Don't lecture me on the right to vote on things like that- if we voted on segregation or curfew right now for people in CERTAIN groups it may just pass.
Some people believe homosexuals are a threat to deceny, some people think people cop killers and attackers of the elderly are. People in Seattle tend to believe cop killers and old-lady-attackers are more abhornent that homosexuals. I guess Ken Hutchinson doesn't agree since I don't hear him yapping right now about certain groups who are a threat to commuty standards.
51
@40
Is creating and nourishing the next generation into adulthood a right of marriage? A responsibility of marriage? It is a way for a marriage to contribute to society, I agree, but what about how society contributes to a marriage? And for the married persons, what should the basis of their relation to each other be?
Is creating and nourishing the next generation into adulthood a right of marriage? A responsibility of marriage? It is a way for a marriage to contribute to society, I agree, but what about how society contributes to a marriage? And for the married persons, what should the basis of their relation to each other be?
54
A right delayed is a right denied.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better.
Words to live by, LC, wouldn't you say??
Ummm, apparently not!
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better.
Words to live by, LC, wouldn't you say??
Ummm, apparently not!
55
@51
Society's role is very simple, it is to create a vehicle (and after its creation to preserve it and protect it) to incentive and sustain man and women unions for the existence of said society in the future.
"And for the married persons, what should the basis of their relation to each other be?"
The formation and subsequent rearing of a family.
Now i know that many people who are not of reproductive age also marry, and you're are going to say that they cannot form a new extended family as a young couple would, so why should they be granted marriage licenses?
Very simple, because even if a man and a woman who wish to consolidate their union in marriage are not of reproductive age, they can still be examples unto others who are. Just by the simple act that they want to enter into such an important commitment means that they know of it's relevance and want to at minimum become role models if merely by the act they consciously made for others to follow. They affirm the importance of marriage even as it evolves into old age. And also be it that there is no deviation from the couples that produce new generations for all societies in this world, no one can say that they may not (even tho it has been a rare occurrence) produce new offspring and thus belong in the category of couples for which the institution of marriage has been constructed for by society.
Society's role is very simple, it is to create a vehicle (and after its creation to preserve it and protect it) to incentive and sustain man and women unions for the existence of said society in the future.
"And for the married persons, what should the basis of their relation to each other be?"
The formation and subsequent rearing of a family.
Now i know that many people who are not of reproductive age also marry, and you're are going to say that they cannot form a new extended family as a young couple would, so why should they be granted marriage licenses?
Very simple, because even if a man and a woman who wish to consolidate their union in marriage are not of reproductive age, they can still be examples unto others who are. Just by the simple act that they want to enter into such an important commitment means that they know of it's relevance and want to at minimum become role models if merely by the act they consciously made for others to follow. They affirm the importance of marriage even as it evolves into old age. And also be it that there is no deviation from the couples that produce new generations for all societies in this world, no one can say that they may not (even tho it has been a rare occurrence) produce new offspring and thus belong in the category of couples for which the institution of marriage has been constructed for by society.
56
55 - You think the entire point of human society is simply to perpetuate itself?
That's really fucking depressing.
That's really fucking depressing.
57
How about this:
"Even if a [two men or women] who wish to consolidate their union in marriage are not [able to bear children], they can still be examples unto others who are. Just by the simple act that they want to enter into such an important commitment means that they know of [its] relevance and want to at minimum become role models if merely by the act they consciously made for others to follow. They affirm the importance of marriage even as it evolves into [new forms]."
"Even if a [two men or women] who wish to consolidate their union in marriage are not [able to bear children], they can still be examples unto others who are. Just by the simple act that they want to enter into such an important commitment means that they know of [its] relevance and want to at minimum become role models if merely by the act they consciously made for others to follow. They affirm the importance of marriage even as it evolves into [new forms]."
58
@LC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszX…
It clears up a lot of question about a Good Christian Marriage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszX…
It clears up a lot of question about a Good Christian Marriage.
59
This country is not and was never run by majority rule. It's not a democracy, it's a democratic republic. That was the intention since the beginning -- to protect the minority from the majority.
60
re: our 'role' as a society being to produce the next generation, some of us actually need to take some fucking action in OUR generation. Otherwise we'll end up popping out babies, mastrubating to our martyr fetish by posting controversial comments on Slog, and hoping our kids will be more useful to society than we were.
Has anyone ever accused Loveschild of being a performance artist or some other sort of a scam? 'She' always seems to post suspiciously close to the time of release of all sorts of Stranger columns...
Has anyone ever accused Loveschild of being a performance artist or some other sort of a scam? 'She' always seems to post suspiciously close to the time of release of all sorts of Stranger columns...
61
This wasn't "the people" speaking, LC, it was a bunch of bigoted fuckwads, like yourself, who "robo-called" a bunch of chickenshit senators and browbeat them into cowtowing to the great bigotry shuffle.
62
Loveschild you stupid bitch, gays are already MARRIED in NY State. As of last year ANY homosexuals who get married in states where it is legal receive full recognition and benefits from NY. Also, NY recognizes that between the hicks up North and the complete morons living in places like the South Bronx the people really shouldn't have a say. That's why we don't have any type of referrendum process.
63
@35, I don't think anyone would compare gay marriage to the crucifixion (or maybe crucifiction?) of Jesus Christ. Because gay people are, you know, REAL, and Jesus is a fictional construct like the Easter Bunny or the tooth fairy or Santa. If in your dream world a magical man with a beard lives up in the clouds and takes care of you if you pray to him hard enough, that's super, but how about letting the rest of us enjoy our lives without interference, k?
I really resent that decent hard-working citizens of this country are being denied basic human rights because of a few narrow-minded jeezo-bigots. Religion is a form of mental illness.
I really resent that decent hard-working citizens of this country are being denied basic human rights because of a few narrow-minded jeezo-bigots. Religion is a form of mental illness.
64
Random moment of common sense because of the comment above that read like this:
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
My opinion: Men can't actually lie with other men like a man and a woman do anyway. The Bible phrase is useless. Now, if the Bible is mandating men and women have anal intercourse and men can't mimic that with each other, fine, then it makes sense. But it's something a male homosexual couples and straight couples can both do, anal sex. Also oral sex where a man receives a blowjob. Somehow I don't think the Bible was that specific about sexual acts where men lie with men. But men having vaginal intercourse with men? Heehee. No. Love it when the Bible is wrong.
Am waiting for conservative Christian Republicans to come up with their new commandment: Thou shalt not have homosexual relations.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
My opinion: Men can't actually lie with other men like a man and a woman do anyway. The Bible phrase is useless. Now, if the Bible is mandating men and women have anal intercourse and men can't mimic that with each other, fine, then it makes sense. But it's something a male homosexual couples and straight couples can both do, anal sex. Also oral sex where a man receives a blowjob. Somehow I don't think the Bible was that specific about sexual acts where men lie with men. But men having vaginal intercourse with men? Heehee. No. Love it when the Bible is wrong.
Am waiting for conservative Christian Republicans to come up with their new commandment: Thou shalt not have homosexual relations.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (65) RSS