Comments.

Jump to comment form

---

1. Hey this is a thing I just said on the other thread:

   As a reference here is full text of the amendment in question.

   The thing that should jump out at you, I think at least, is the overly broad language. The second part of the amendment prohibits any “union, partnership, or other legal status” that approximates marriage. This is regardless of the genders involved. It just seems too broadly worded to go as an amendment to the state constitution.

   Also, I think eventually in a couple decades or so when this all settles down we will have a SCOTUS decision allowing states to define marriage as whatever they want as long as a civil union option — with the same benefits as marriage — exists. My prediction at least.

   — MaxPower | @

2. Good post btw, I will comment after I get back from beerble sometime.

   — MaxPower | @

3. thanks, Max.
   also, i believe you posted as a relavent article from Waldo.

   — Wolf | @

4. oops. at least the link works?

   — Wolf | @

5. I think the only *real* solution, and tons of people disagree with me so whatever, but the real solution here is to extract marriage from the laws. So we end up with all marriages are civil unions but not all civil unions are marriages. I mean the less the government is all up in my business the better.

   I think a decent argument against what I just said is *perhaps* adopting children. I can see — although I may not agree — people’s arguments against gay people adopting kids.

   — MaxPower | @

6. BTW, the senate just passed this amendment. So that means the house and the senate have both passed their versions of the amendment — in this case (not all cases) they are identical. So now the senate must pass the house version and vice versa. So this is pretty much a done deal until novemeber when it shows up as a referendum on the ballot.

   It will be an interesting Get Out The Vote campaign in november.

   — MaxPower | @

7. yeah i agree with max, give everybody a gvmnt recognized civil union and let churches do what they want with marriage.

   the reason people are so crazy about letting gays marry i think is cuz they feel like it is an assault on their religion. which it is (or might be)!! but only because their religion got all tangled up in a democracy. which tj and his posse recognized was bad, not only for the people, but for the religions.

   virginia statute on religious freedom (by tj):
   http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_vsrf.html

   …that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own…

   — midas | @

8. i’m not sure about this one. i am truly open to changes at some level. i don’t think it has anything to do with religion though. i mean, to some people it does, but not to me. i kindof think it boils down to people denying the difference between men and women. people want everyone to just be unisex and identical when they aren’t. to me, it seems overwhelmingly clear that men and women were meant to have a sexual relationship, and men and men and women and women were not. there is a crazy amount of evidense supporting this from the obvious anatomical to less obvious psychological and family unit reasons. people love to deny these things and move forward with gay relationships. i’m fine with that, if that’s what you’re into, but i’m not fine with implying that those relationships are identical to that which can be had between men and women. for that reason, i’m ok with having different institutions for the 2 types of relationships.

   i’d be fine with eliminating some of the marriage advantages and i’d be fine with giving some of them to any 2 people, but for the most part i’m fine with things as they are.

   i’ll lay this out there, and piss everybody off… ignoring religion altogether, i feel fine saying i don’t find it ok to be gay. i think it is a problem. i think it is a dysfunction. a disorder. i have a mental disorder myself, so it’s not as though i would descriminate or hate gay people, but i do view it as a flaw of some nature. i know this view is socially unacceptable to some people in this day and age, so rebuke as required.

   — Wolf | @

9. Wolf, dude, you have been exceedingly reasonable as of late. What gives? Suggesting I middle ground even!

   — MaxPower | @

10. If you talk to gay people in general — ask them if they wanted to marry for the benefits of their religious beliefs. Their answers will be “NO”. Nothing to do with that, they wanted the BENEFITS, RIGHTS and CONTRACTS to protect themselves should something happen to them!

    With this amendment, there is no room for civil unions at all. It just destroyed anything else that gay people wanted some protection.

    Use your brain for a change.

    R-

    — Me is the Ridor | @

11. men and women were meant to have a sexual relationship

    that “meant” there is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological argument. which is fine and great, but is equivalent enough to saying “my god said so” to make me uncomfortable in using it to create laws. what people are “meant” to do with their lives is usually something reserved to the people to decide for themselves as long as they don’t damage other people more than is reasonable. anyways, people are clearly meant to walk on their legs, but most people drive cars instead.

    for me, the question is: does it hurt me to have two strangers get married, even if they are both boys? if you disagree with gayness, then you have the right (the duty?) to produce and apply societal pressures against it, to encourage people to do what you feel is Right. but that is different from placing legal pressures on the same. for that you need to show that they are infringing on the rights of others to an unreasonable degree.

    js mill talks about this a lot in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty

    anyways, that’s my thinking :)

    — midas | @

12. I mean I feel that this may be a legitimate argument:

    When raising kids, gay parents raise insane kids who are traumatized.

    I mean obviously someone would have to look up “studies” or something to back that up. But that could be something that would affect you in your life. Just like we don’t let old dudes have sex with babies. It causes harm to the babies. Ya digg? Just playing devil’s advocate btwz.

    — MaxPower | @

13. when i said “meant” to i did not mean that everyone should do it, i meant that i was a healthy thing to do. you don’t have to use your legs, but it’s a healthy thing to do that makes sense. i don’t care if god gave you legs or if you grew them to walk out of the ocean a billion years ago. but if you choose to walk on your hands should we be required to have door handles down by the floor?? floor-door-handles wouldn’t infringe on my rights, but should we be required to support this habit? this lifestyle? is it hald-walker’s right?

    — Wolf | @

14. it puts you out to add another doorknob, for the price of the doorknob. does it put you out to have 2 gay strangers married? any more than if they were to marry a straight person instead?

    also, are we going to make it ILLEGAL to walk on your hands? will we deny them the right to wear shoes?

    re: adoption, then why arent we debating about whether gay people should be allowed to adopt? instead we are talking about whether gay people should be able to enter into legal contracts with each other. if someone said, “okay gay people can get married, but they just can’t adopt anybody,” would the anti-gay side suddenly say “okay”?

    — midas | @

15. haha. well, i was trying to stick with your silly legs example- i didn’t say it was bulletproof.

    i don’t think we’re talking about rights. the benefits of marriage are a privilege that the government grants a man and a woman. the government can take those benefits away. we’re not talking free speech. the government cannot take free speech. bc of this, i don’t think your reasoning about infringing on someone else’s rights applies. it doesn’t put anyone out when 6yo consents to having sex with a 30yo. they might turn out fine. what if that’s what they’re into?? why not be able to marry a 6yo? bc society says it’s not good for the kids to have sex and it’s not good for society. i (and a lot of research and a majority of america) would say that gay marriage is similar- not good for the participants and not good for society. being as such, we do not have to grant the privilege of the benefits of marriage to kids or 2 men or women.

    — Wolf | @

16. I mean I feel that this may be a legitimate argument:

    When raising kids, gay parents raise insane kids who are traumatized.

    I mean obviously someone would have to look up “studies” or something to back that up. But that could be something that would affect you in your life. Just like we don’t let old dudes have sex with babies. It causes harm to the babies. Ya digg? Just playing devil’s advocate btwz.

    You could show that babies born into a family on welfare are more likely to spend time in jail. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t let people on welfare have babies, even though it tangentially affects my life.

    But really, I doubt you’d find that outlawing civil unions would help kids, regardless of the adoption question. If the parents you live with are gay, you’re probably more likely to be the biological naturally born child of one of them than adopted or artificially inseminated or any of those things. In that case, a civil union between your dad and step-dad (or mom and step-mom) would probably make you better off than otherwise.

    If we as a society want to defend marriage, we should make it more of a pain in the ass to get a divorce, or even to abandon your spouse. Divorce unequivocally hurts kids, except in cases of abuse. The bible is against divorce. People were meant to be monogamous. Divorce is a choice, not a lifestyle - and when there is a kid involved, it isn’t a choice, but a life. People who feel the need to get divorced could be thought of as having a mental problem. The only flaw with this scenario is that people who want to get divorced aren’t as small or unpopular of a segment of our population. Otherwise, we would definitely have as little a problem infringing on those people’s rights as we do of infringing on the rights of those who want to marry someone of their sex.

    — RMSzero | @

17. no comment about the raw speculation about the effects of gay marriage on kids, but i agree about divorce. perhaps it should be more difficult to get married in the first place also? i might be ok with witholding some of the benefits of marriage for a period in order to validate a marriage and i might also be ok with fining for divorce… not really fining, but reclaiming what financial benefits were given for for a certain time period if that’s even possible. but seriously, divorce is bad.

    — Wolf | @

18. Humans were not meant to be monogamous by any standards — but it was our society that demanded it in the first place.

    WE are like dogs. WE fuck each other like rabbits.

    R-

    — Me is the Ridor | @

19. yeah, rabbits have gay sex all the time.

    — Wolf | @

20. yeah i know marriage isnt in the constitution, and i agree it’s not an inalienable right or whatever, but it does say in there that the government has to treat everyone equally. it can’t provide privledges to one kind of person that it denies to another. i know that gay people can get married to oppisite sex people too, but if i said that black people can get married to black people but not white people, would you agree that they are getting equal protection under the law? they can all get married, as long as they get married to who we say is okay?

    as far as the 6year old thing, it’s okay to forbid that because society has decided that people under 18 or whatever are not capable of making their own decisions. they are not legal people and it’s therefore okay to limit their freedom to do stuff like have sex, etc. it’s like having sex with a drunk person and then you get rape charges - if the person is incompetent, you (society) are allowed to protect them from themselves.

    i guess that if you think gay people are mentally ill, you could make the argument that you are protecting them from themselves by forcing them to be straight… i dunno though. i guess then it comes down to: are they mentally ill to the degree that we can restrict their autonomy?

    how does it hurt society for 2 gay people to be married?

    — midas | @

21. i mean, as far as the 6yo thing goes, they say you can’t marry your sister. what if i happen to want my sister, i can’t marry her (even if i agree to have surgery to not have kids)?? we’re adults.

    women aren’t put into military drafts. women cannot be on the front lines. men don’t get maternity leave (and if they get paternity it’s still different rules). women and men are different. we know this. marriage does not descriminate. this is not the same as blacks marrying whites- this is not even gay discremination- if you’re a gay man, sure you can still marry a woman all you want. there’s no question on the marriage agreement “are you gay?”

    bc this isn’t a rights issue, it’s up to legislation, meaning it’s up to the people (assuming it doesn’t unlawfully descriminate). in 1000 years when the xians have been destroyed, you might win that vote, but put that to the people right now and there will be no gay marriage.

    — Wolf | @

22. It was documented that some male penguins fuck each other. Some male rabbits fuck each other. Some male dolphins fuck its own. So what?

    The whole point is not about “a woman or a man” — it is about legel benefits. At this rate, I am NOT allowed to impose my wills, insurance, benefits and contracts upon the person I loved the most.

    I dont want to fuck women. Their vaginas reeks of chopped liver to me.

    Capisce? If you like it, you can fuck chopped liver for all I care but why do you care about mine?

    R-

    — Me is the Ridor | @

23. Me is the Ridor, there are so many responses for you that would be pefectly warranted; however, some people desire to keep conversations here civil to some degree. when you do some mental growing up and maturing, and want to have an informed intelligent conversation in a civil way, then i might make time for you. until then, i have more important things to do with my time.

    — Wolf | @

24. To some degree? Sorry, Virginia lost it when they became obsessed in making gays second class citizens.

    R-

    — Me is the Ridor | @

25. haha youre right, i would agree that incest laws are bad and that keeping women off the front lines is bad and also that only men have to register for the draft is bad. also affirmitive action. all of those things are stupid (unjust) laws if you ask me.

    we’ll just have to disagree i guess about teh gays. time will tell i suppose. :)

    on the other hand: if we legalize gay marriage, we can probably get ridor to stop spouting obscenities.

    — midas | @

26. also, at assembly type places (arenas, coliseams, etc.) the requirement for women’s toilets is greater than for men’s toilets!? that’s a state law. and unisex restrooms are almost always prohibited. OH NO!!

    yeah, if you want women assuming half our military positions in a time of war, we will have to agree to disagree. hoooweee, you might as well change your name to Chang ‘Midas’ Ming now.

    well, if there’s one thing we can all agree on, it must be “some male penguins fuck each other.”

    — Wolf | @

27. yes, ridor’s eloquent points are a credit to his position. who can argue with such skilled oratory?

    — midas | @

28. Chang ‘Midas’ Ming. That is amazing. +1

    — MaxPower | @

29. i like chopped liver. mmm… delicious.

    smells better than an anus.

    — fetzer | @