It Isn't Just Banning Same-Sex Marriage

I have to admit to

a little schadenfreude when I think of them applying this to their own.

Ronnie?
Rush?
McCain?
Newt?
Hagee?
Schlessinger?
Thompson?
Giuliani?
Chenoweth?
Graham?
Armey?
Dole?

The list is endless. Feel free to eat your own first.

---

by: Kathleen @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:46:55 AM CDT

Kathleen - you got this ALL wrong...

There is a slight difference:

All of society is hugely impacted by divorce

.. this would be us

As we already learned there is a different set of rules for the fellows you listed above - all in the spirit of good old bigotry

---

by: rupi3000 @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:44:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I support him

If those religionists insist that same-sex marriage somehow re-defines the exclusive tradition of marriage, then all citizens should be obligated to uphold that exclusive tradition.

Get rid of divorce.  Get rid of Las Vegas marriages.  Get rid of all of the consumer pimping in television, movies, magazines, etc...all of it makes the sacred tradition of marriage look foolish and cheap.

If the complacent and ambivalent heterosexuals are willing to look the other way while religious fanatics work to marginalize LGBT citizens, then they deserve limitations on their citizenship too.

Unconcerned about the bigoted push to ban same-sex relationships?  Well, the high moral standard is coming home to roost, heteros.  

NO MORE DIVORCE.  

---

by: Patrick @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:13:25 AM CDT

Yes! And if marriage is about the kids...

Fertility tests and blood test for that marriage license. And start the clock ticking from the wedding day; if the couple doesn't give birth or adopt in a given time frame (say a year or two), the marriage is annulled, or at least the tax benefits are. I'd love to see the straights get taxed on the health insurance benefits for their spouses like domestic partners do--listen to them howl!  Let the fundies intrude on the straights' lives and see how much they like it.

Cue maniacal laughter.

"More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn't read." -- Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

---

by: Switchhttr69 @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:40:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

and if it takes two opposite sex parents to raise kids

take those kids away from widows and widowers who don't remarry (and have more kids) within a year of losing a spouse

---

by: ol cranky @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 13:50:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it doesn't require kids

silly, it approves of kids, it allows kids, it guarantees the right to produce offspring, but it doesn't require the couple to conceive children.  Yeah I know, you don't need marriage to have the right to create offspring, but that hasn't always been true, and it shouldn't be - people should have to get married before creating offspring together.  Yeah, we want to get rid of no fault divorce, and we want to get rid out-of-wedlock births too, for the same reason.

But even without doing that, even if we continue to allow unmarried conception, marriage still continues to allow the couple to create offspring together.  Same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to create offspring together, it is unethical and unnecessary and wasteful.

---

by: Locke @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 20:45:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Washington State supreme court thinks so

In the decision the WA State supreme court issued that said that same sex couples have no constitutional right to marriage in WA state, they said that marriage is reserved for procreative purposes.  

They apparently are afraid that "legitimate" childbirth will grind to a halt in WA state if other than straight people get married.

After that decision was announced the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance was formed in a satirical, yet confrontational attempt to enforce the exclusionary decision on the population who is intended to reproduce responsibly by promoting a ballot initiative to amend the marriage code.

I think the alliance has been disbanded but I kinda loved their stunt.  Here are the main points that I found at another blog:

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_...

 

 * add the phrase "who are capable of having children with one another" to the legal definition of marriage;

   * require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;

   * require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as "unrecognized;"

   * establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and

   * make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

It deserved more attention than it got.

---

by: Patrick @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 21:33:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I believe

both New Jersey and Connecicutt courts think so too.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 00:42:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your joking right?

"it doesn't require kids silly, it approves of kids, it allows kids, it guarantees the right to produce offspring, but it doesn't require the couple to conceive children"

The argument that LGBT individuals should not marry because they can't produce children together, is mentioned at in almost every anti-gay marriage argument I've heard. Homophobic lawsuits use this as a legal argument. i.e. in court.

"Same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to create offspring together, it is unethical and unnecessary and wasteful."

Why? Please enlighten me. I happen to know a few LGBT individuals who have children. If you would like I can get a few of those children to talk to you so you can inform them that they are a waste and unethical in nature.  

nothing new at this time.....

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:14:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

talking about ssp

We're not talking about the ways people have kids today, those are all natural sexual reproduction, the product of a man and a woman.  It's attempting to create a child from two people of the same sex that is unethical.  There is no need to do it, because a biological connection isn't necessary for a fully loving family.  It is wasteful because it would take millions of dollars of research (perhaps billions all told) and divert scientists away from work on curing diseases, and use up lots of energy.

You are right that the argument that gays shouldn't marry because they can't procreate together does get made, and it is indeed a faulty argument.  It's not a question of ability, but of ethics.  For example, a brother and sister have the ability to conceive children together, but cannot do so ethically, hence they are prohibited from marrying.  Marriage is only for couples that can ethically produce children together, based on public non-private information (their sex, relatedness, age, and marital status - not private info such as their health, fertility, genetics, etc).

---

by: Locke @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:29:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

here we go again with the gene police

The prohibition on brothers and sisters getting married doesn't stop them from reproducing.  

Marriage as it is legalized today doesn't stipulate the creation of offspring - it neither enforces nor forbids reproduction...unless it is a same-sex couple that is interested in obtaining the license.  When that happens, suddenly the traditional and hallowed institution of marriage needs to be preserved for the rearing of children and must be held in high regard.  It should be protected and exalted by being limited to different sex couples.

Unfortunately, half of the different sex couples that bother to get married end up getting divorced.  They are not mandated to reproduce (even though courts are saying that is what the license is used for) and whether they reproduce or not they get divorced leaving children with only one parent and yet there is no push to end this blatant misuse of a traditional, sacred and delicate licensing practice.

The funny thing is that ethical and gene related incoherent rambling is raised only when the obvious disparity is impossible to ignore or rebut.  

Marriage is only for couples that can ethically produce children together, based on public non-private information (their sex, relatedness, age, and marital status - not private info such as their health, fertility, genetics, etc).

There is no ethics examination given when obtaining a marriage license.  Either an ethics test should be created that eliminates some of the profoundly unethical hetero people from obtaining a license (and revoked when they do not uphold the intention) or there should be licenses issued to same sex couples whether or not they already have children, intend to have children (via adoption or otherwise), or do not desire children at all.

---

by: Patrick @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:46:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

incest laws stop them

And they can't get married, because marriage would let them.  They can live together, love each other, visit each other in the hospital, raise kids together, inherit from each other, etc, but they aren't allowed to conceive children together.  That's why they can't get married.

Do you agree that same-sex conception should not be allowed, that we should not waste time and money pursuing ways to create biologically related children for same-sex couples?

Do you agree that all marriages should be allowed to conceive children together, using their own genes?

Face it Patrick, this is a not something you can argue your way around, it won't be going away.  IF you are going to keep insisting on equal rights for same-sex couples, you either have to hold the door open for unethical genetic engineering of people, or you have to hold the door open for eugenics and forced sterilization of genetically unfit.  

But just think about the opportunity that admitting you're wrong would present:  If you were to accept that same-sex conception was unnecessary and unethical, and agree that all marriages should be allowed to attempt to conceive children, and that therefore same-sex couples should not have marriage rights, then you could make enormous progress towards achieving equal protections via civil unions.  All the things you claim you want, you could probably have in just a matter of months, in all fifty states, as long as you give up the demand for equal conception rights.  It's an amazing opportunity.  Don't think of it as a traitorous thing to admit, it is actually traitorous to the thousands of same-sex couples that need equal protections to ignore this plan and hold out for conception rights.

---

by: Locke @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:46:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

conceive

Basic Swine Rub

Also known as Butt Rub, this should be generously rubbed all over your pork butt or shoulder a minimum of a few hours or, preferably, the day before your pig meat is smoked.

Amount Ingredient Preparation Method
2 TBS Kosher salt DO NOT use iodized salt!
4 TBS dark brown sugar
2 TBS cumin seed ground
2 TBS chile powder New Mexican is best
2 TBS black pepper fresh cracked
1 TBS cayenne pepper
4 TBS Hungarian paprika
2 TBS ground sage

Makes about one cup, enough for a good pork butt.

Should be plenty for you, Locke

---

by: Patrick @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 13:13:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

thousands of couples appreciate your concern

for their suffering because they cannot get any government protections for their relationship.

---

by: Locke @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 13:18:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well okay?

I would like to have a debate. But a real one, without the snide undertones.

I think you (Locke) are confusing what you believe should happen and what really does happen.

Tell me, honestly, why would allowing same sex couples to marry and/or have children, lead to incest or eugenics? What makes you believe this?

You are presenting a all or nothing argument. Its similar to saying, if we allow this person to kill some one because it was self defense and his/her life was in danger, all murder is ok.

The all or nothing argument may make sense to some, it seems logical and straight forward. But laws are not written in a all or nothing manner. For example, it is legal to drink when your 21 years old. But you can't drink and drive. If we use your argument, we should ban all alcohol. That way no one can drink and drive.


nothing new at this time.....

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 17:41:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not true

For example, it is legal to drink when your 21 years old. But you can't drink and drive. If we use your argument, we should ban all alcohol. That way no one can drink and drive.

Of course a 21 year-old can drink and drive as long his or her blood level for alcohol is below whatever the jurisdiction mandates.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 17:55:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Because the only place to stop GE

is at natural conception of a man and a woman.  Once we say that people can do super risky experimental things to try and create people that could not be created by people by themselves (if they were healthy), then we just start allowing everything.   How do we justify prohibiting someone from reproducing using modified gametes that are intended to reduce the risk of breast cancer if we allow other people to do much much riskier things like same-sex conception.  The only place to stop it is where we are now: while all people are created equal, as the union of an actual man and woman.

Even if we could draw that line and say that same-sex conception is OK, but stem-cell derived modified gametes for purposes of eugenic improvement are banned (and keep in mind that most people would argue that it should be the other way around), same-sex conception is still grossly unethical on its own.  It's unnecessary and wasteful and there are so many much more important things to work on, plus it's totally unsafe and callous and unloving to subject the child to such an experiment.

And if we ban SSP but allow SSM anyways, then it strips the right to conceive using the couple's own gametes from marraige, and would make it possible to coerce people into using better gametes instead of their own, which is also an evil eugenic future.

---

by: Locke @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 20:47:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

we are already beyond the natural conception phase

Locke;
You seem to find this disturbing. Every step forward that we take is a step toward stopping many degenerative or ravaging diseases.

As far as your "natural" argument, in vitro fertilization is alreasy beyond that mark and widely available.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 22:21:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

no we have not started to alter genes yet

So far, every human being has been the natural sexual conception of a man and a woman's unmodified genes.  IVF is natural conception.

Yes, it is very disturbing that people are so uninformed and gung ho about genetic modification.  It won't stop diseases, it will only cost tons of money and waste our resources, and threaten our natural reproduction rights, create gene-rich and gene-poor divide, and will likely harm more people than it helps.  And same-sex conception is nothing but risky, it doesn't even try to fix any diseases, it just introduces enormous risk.  

Please read Enough by Bill McKibben, for starters.  Or Brave New World.  Don't wait for Leonardo diCaprio's Brave New World to come out, by then it might be too late.

---

by: Locke @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 14:28:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Locke, I am sorry to say this

but I feel that I would be remiss if I did not bring it to your attention:
You're daft, man.
The entire medical mainstream supports at least some degree of genetic research and the ability to correct defects.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 17:52:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not sure where you get that idea, but whatever

It would be a terrible terrible thing to start doing.  Read Enough, or even read some of the books that try to make an argument for allowing genetic engineering, like Choosing Children by Jonathan Glover.  The issue is not decided yet, you are taking a simplistic view that ignores huge ethical issues.  Yes, you are right that absent a law that prevents it, it will start happening, but not because it is considered by the entire mainstream to be an ethical and wise thing to do.  It should be prohibited, it will be better to prohibit it.

And even if we decide there should be a right to design the genes of people to fix defects, that is a very different thing to justify than same-sex conception.  In fact, SSP is virtually the opposite of genetic enhancement:  All the reasons to do genetic "cures" are reasons to NOT do same-sex conception, since SSP will increase risk of defects.  It's funny, the people that want to do SSP argue that it won't have any of the problems associated with genetic enhancement, since it will just combine the two men or two women's genes randomly.  Yet in spite of that fundamental disagreement, the two factions are united that neither should be prohibited, which shows that they are not arguing in good faith.  You should be arguing with each other if you truly believed in your arguments, but you don't.  You know I'm right, but can't face it.

---

by: Locke @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 18:20:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Omlettes!

I see the egg and sperm law guy is back, or one of his (very) close kin.

I guess it is inevitable that threads about this subject quickly devolve into name-calling and such. I think that's a shame since the ethics of same-sex reproduction is a fascinating topic.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 14:57:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

uh yeah

My original post was a modest proposal--rather like Mr. Swift's.

"More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn't read." -- Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

---

by: Switchhttr69 @ Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 18:08:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just how is it unethical?

By what standard are you judging a same sex couple having a child as unethical? Certainly not medical ethics, which permits it. Women have worked hard for the right to use artificial insemination regardless of marital status and it most certainly ought not be denied to one member of a committed Lesbian partnership.

Locke, honestly, it always rankles me when a man decides what a woman ought or ought not be able to do as far as her own sexual or reproductve behaviour.

Were I not certain that you are a fundie troll, I would have one of my "gay male patriarchial oligarchy" moments but fortunately, this thread will be spared that...for now.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 22:27:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Talking about altering the genes

SSP requires altering the genetic imprinting to make the genes complementary.  I'm not talking about natural conception.

Aren't you rankled to begin with?  Silly girl.

---

by: Locke @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 14:31:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

behave locke

or we will send hordes of liberal Lesbians your way..

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 15:08:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

there true plans

covenant marriages anyone?

http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

---

by: hippie4lyfe @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:20:07 AM CDT

Unsuccessful marriages

Unsuccessful marriages have existed in the United States since colonial times.  Abandonment was one extralegal method to escape - more often by the man than the woman.

People will find a way out of an unhappy relationship no matter what laws are on the books.

FYI, I found this article when I googled "abandonment instead of divorce in early America"  Quite an interesting read:  

http://www.americanforeignrela...

---

by: Zorya @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:47:50 PM CDT

Its not about marriage rather about those less than gays

This is a better link for Center for Arizona Policy.
http://www.azpolicy.org/
Cathy Herrod in particular is the driving force  behind this incarnation of antigay amendment.....like in Oregon where the amendment drive was "definition" only, the proponents are in AZ claiming this to be only about marriage and not domestic partnerships.  Well we see how that is playing out in Oregon....antigay industry is gathering signatures to put a repeal of the DP law on the Nov ballot.  
Any doubt that would happen in AZ if this incarnation of limiting rights happens?  You bet.
Two years ago the antigay amendment failed narrowly because it would rescind DPs of opposite sex couples.  Opponents to equality don't have that leverage now.  
Sad thing.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:56:07 PM CDT

Call it "Straight rights"

They're not just after gay people. we're just the first ones on the list.Wake up, Americans! True freedom is the right to live your life as you see fit, free from someone else's religious beliefs.

   This is the agenda of the American Taliban, the so-called Religious Right. Right now, they are attacking gay people, because taking advantage of prejudice gives them money, power, and influence. But they won't stop there.  abortion and birth control are next on the agenda. Social conservatives stymied the approval of a vaccine against Human Papilloma Virus, a leading cause of cervical cancer and death in women, on the grounds that it promotes promiscuity. Death is better than sex? Do you think that your activities in the privacy of your bedroom should be of no concern to the state? The sodomy laws in many states did not apply just to gay people, and there isn't much keeping those laws from making a comeback.

   Do you think your children should be taught science instead of superstition? Not if the creationists get their way.  The piece-de-resistance of fundamentalist desire and thinking will be a total war in the Middle East, bringing about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ--or so many of them believe. Of course, all it will really bring about is the destruction on a massive scale, and the possible collapse of  civilization, if not of life itself.

   Call it straight rights.

---

by: Ben in Oakland @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 13:34:29 PM CDT

The muslims are fighting divorce and homosexuality too

I think creationists would prefer that the Muslim Jihad succeeded, rather than going over there and fighting it.  It's the liberals that want to fight a war in the Middle East and bring "freedom" there.

---

by: Locke @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 21:02:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

why not ban all marriage?

if same sex marriage really runs against the grain of religious folks, and denying it runs contrary to civil rights laws already on the books, I am left wondering why our government recognises a religious intitution anyway? Would it not be apropriate to just declare every marriage a civil union and let the bible thumpers fume in thier hatred quietly?
On a seperate note( I am a married bisexual, married to a bisexual) several years ago some asnine anti gay legislation was proposed in our state. One of my wifes straight friends tryed to get us to go along to the capitol for the protest. This friend planned to burn her marriage license there. I had to point out to her that not on heterosexual has signed my marriage license(except perhaps the notary).We are both bi, the minister was the long term partner of a freind of ours, and our witnesses were a lesbian freind and gay neighbor. I know that the prejudice in the gay community against bisexuals largley stems from resentment over the availability of het privlage. So my sugestion was to blow up the document into a large sign and paint on it in large letters ," Not one the names on this document belongs to a heterosexual, is my marriage still legal?" This just seemed more satasfying than burning it. Oh and the marriage bill failled.

---

by: jason @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 19:48:34 PM CDT

good point

Of course bi people can marry, you could be totally gay and still marry, you just should have to be a man and a woman.

---

by: Locke @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 21:05:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why should I

as a Lesbian, have only marrying an individual of a gender that I am not attracted to as an option? I was brought up to believe what you are saying, I married, I had three children and then the marriage failed. Some years later I stopped trying to follow arbitrary rules set up by men who knew nothing of love between women.

What is the reason based in logic that I ought not be able to marry a woman?

By the way, you are too late, I was married in Canada and now that marriage is legally recognized in New York.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 22:32:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]