Defending Traditional Marriage

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mactastic, Feb 5, 2007.

  1. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #1
    So the American Taliban wants to claim marriage is about procreation? That bluff is being called.
    It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Kinda hard for the religious right to argue against it -- unless they want to admit that sometimes marriage happens between two people for no other reason than that they love each other -- and you might get considerable support among conservatives who don't realize that this isn't being pushed by a conservative group...
     
  2. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
  3. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #4
    More of saving the world from the great gay threat:rolleyes: Neocons, then they tax the hell out of the married couple much more then say if a couple doesnt marry. Govt is screwed up everywhere it goes.
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    I say fine. Let's see how people like this law. It should be debated most definitely.
     
  5. Benjamin macrumors 6502a

    Benjamin

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #6
    "proof of procreation" got me, thats fing funny.
     
  6. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
  7. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    I had to laugh when I saw this too. It's terrible legislation from just about any perspective. But it does serve to drive home the point.

    And with "activist judges" making rulings like "the state has an interest in preserving one-man/one-woman marriages for reasons of procreation", you never know what can end up happening.

    If the ballot initiatives don't work, perhaps someone can sue somewhere and force a court to put teeth into the "reasons of procreation" rationale. That's the danger of those kind of rulings. They're unsound, and so they require twisted logic to justify when the situations are reversed. And the situations are almost always reversed, sooner or later.
     
  8. stoid macrumors 601

    stoid

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    #9
    So what about couples that are unable to have children? Are they required to adopt?

    Or are they to be punished for the 'sin' of sterility?
     
  9. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #10
    I eagerly await legislation criminalising infidelity, extramarital sex of any kind and abolishing divorce. Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.
     
  10. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #11
    They should live chaste lives and dedicate their sacrifice to the baby Jesus.
     
  11. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #12
    Wow that is like way over the bounds of anything legal.
     
  12. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #13
    In Michigan, your wish is granted.
     
  13. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
  14. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    No more so than banning other forms of marriage, wouldn't you think?

    And you have to understand the legal issue here. If the state Supremes have said that so-called traditional marriages can be regulated based on the legal concept that the state has an interest in "preserving marriage for procreation", that opens the door to a host of other challenges based upon preserving marriage for procreation.

    Once you find a legal way to ban one kind of marriage, other forms are on the block as well. Elections, as they say, have consequences.

    It is a small step from banning benefits for gay couples to unmarried straight couples. That will happen in some of these states that don't word their anti-gay laws tightly enough. Sex outside of marriage can be criminalized in extreme examples such as Michigan.

    It's the conservative nanny-state run amok.
     
  15. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    Did you just use the term "nanny-state"? I thought you hated that term. ;) Maybe it's someone else I'm thinking of.
     
  16. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #17
    I love this. Sometimes turning their own arguments against them is the only way to get people to realise how stupid their stance on something is in the first place.
     
  17. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #18
    Agreed- but after seeing scenes from films like Jesus Camp, I can't help but be worried that this could backfire on us. ;)
     
  18. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #19
    lets hope it wakes people up to the illogical perception of marriage.
     
  19. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #20
    As mentioned in the Michigan case above, adultery is often criminalized. Most states, however, make is a minor offence. The reason for doing so is protection in divorce proceedings. Because there is a criminal penalty (in MD, $10), you can refuse to testify regarding infidelity (thus shunting the perjury problem). It increases the burden for filing a fault-divorce based on adultery.

    Regarding gay marriage, it would be nice to see people on both sides consider all the issues rather than letting emotion make decisions. If we could sort out major foreseeable problems, the debate would be more productive.
     
  20. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #21
    Oh there's a surprise. It's all going amicably until religion gets involved. :rolleyes:

    EDIT: And I also note that the mom with the Conservative Christians whispering in her ear is the one changing her story. Once again, the poster child of the Right is a messed-up and easily manipulated individual.
     
  21. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #22
    if you love it so much, why don't you marry it?
     
  22. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #23
    maybe i will, after i see where this thing with Proposition 211 is going.
     
  23. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #24
    Beyond the issue of religion getting involved (which may or may not happen), the custody question is tough to resolve. Sure you can say that both mothers have rights, but as the article points out, media attention regarding a child being taken from the biological mother to be given to the former partner would be brutal PR.

    I wonder how this would have played out if the religious conversion had played out the opposite way.
     
  24. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #25
    Both of these women took the decision to bring this child into the world, just as millions of other couples do every year. If you imagine for a moment Janet is a man, would it be any easier for the child to be taken from its biological mother and given to the father in this case. If so, why the difference? The mother still carried the child for nine months, and still breast fed it. But does that mean the father should have no rights?

    Once again, the gay aspect of this story is concentrated on rather than the wider picture, which is what happens to a child when a relationship breaks down. And despite society's incredible double standards about it, the results of this effect us all, because gay people in relationships don't actually behave any differently to straight people. Sometimes things don't work out, regardless of your sexuality. The only difference is the bigots don't go accusing the ex-couple in the straight relationship of "wanting it all" and being "selfish".

    Lisa has a family history filled with tragedy, her own personal battles with alcoholism, contradicts her own testimonies and is desperately attempting to find a label for herself. In contrast, Janet comes from a stable upbringing and is both mentally stable and successful. Lisa is the only one of the pair who would ever turn to religion.

    That however is beside the point. That particular religious group she has joined are attempting to wipe one of the girl's parents out of her life to satisfy their own deluded beliefs. That is pure spite, some would say downright evil, and it proves once again in my mind that whenever people behave really badly to each other, they always want god to take the blame.
     

Share This Page