• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!

cwalner said:
If we are to assume that Nature had any intention whatsoever, I must disagree with this. If those organs were not intended to be used in that fashion, then why does it feel so good to do so.
Click to expand...


Obviously, god made a mistake there.

He doesn't do that very often, so he's allowed a few.

Fortunately for him he has the fundies to help him catch that sort of thing.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Only about 60% of male homosexuals have anal sex.
Click to expand...
I don't know those numbers, but I have no particular reason to question them. Not that I discuss my gay friends' sex lives all that much (or much of anyone's for that matter), but I know some of the guys don't have anal sex. I didn't know how common that was so I didn't include them.

So, if that's true and you assume the gay community are roughly 50/50 male/female, that means a little less than 75% of the gay community do not engage in anal sex. At least, not with a penis.

Not, as I said, should this have any bearing on whether or not a couple should be allowed to get married. People's private lives are their private lives. What we're discussing are their legally recognized status as a married couple.
 
Robert Prey said:
Bigoted for the obvious fact that Nature did not intend for an anus to be a receptacle for a penis??? Then Nature is a Bigot.
Click to expand...
If mouths and anuses weren't intended for penises, why is putting them there so awesome?
 
DarbyII said:
Dunstan,



I swear to you that this is not a semantics game. The issue is not that the State should stop legally sanctioning marriage. Of course the institution needs civil law to protect the rights of the participants. The issue is the licensing part. There's no reason on God's green Earth to require people to obtain a license (permission) from the State to get married.

Get rid of licensing. That's the business that the State needs to get out of. Look at the mess we have as the proponents work us over in the media trying to propogandize one or the other position here. We get blithering idiots (read that "experts")on one side saying that gay couples can't properly raise children because they are, well, gay. This is followed by equally blithering idiots who say that gays make better parents because they are...sensitive people.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence of the latter claim? I mean, there's always someone out there who will make even the strangest claims, but I'm not aware of any gay rights group seriously advancing that argument. I don't believe it's been used in any of the court cases.

No proof one way or the other, have you, but people buy into the crap.

In reality I don't know which position has validity but I suspect neither. In any case they're talking about married couples (gay and straight) raising children and we don't require a license to have children from anyone. There's no requirement for a heterosexual unmarried couple to ask the State's permission to have children. And they do have them - lot's of them. (Refer to my request in the previous post.)

We can argue the morality, ethics, religion, etc. angles until we are blue in the face but it won't justify a State licensing requirement. We already have immoral, unethical and irreverent people who are "married with license." The license requirement doesn't assure good behavior or even serve a necessary function of the State - other than yet another tax to pay so the State can hire more government employees to process the unnecessary licenses and SEIU can garner more dues from government union membership which is collected by yet other government employees in the treasurer's office to be delivered to the unon bank account. (It's late and I'm now officially rambling.)
Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone seriously claims that marriage licenses are about "assuring good behavior," considering that you can be imprisoned for abusing or even murdering your previous spouse and still get one.

The function of a license is just to certify that the couple (claims to) meet the rather minimal legal requirements (not currently married to anyone else, not certain kinds of close relatives, perhaps a few others depending on the state), to provide a formal record of who is and isn't married (just as a county recorder's office maintains records of land transactions), and yes, to generate a small amount of revenue for the state.

So it sounds to me like you simply support gay marriage, and separately have some anti-tax argument against licensing.
 
Dunstan said:
<snip>

So it sounds to me like you simply support gay marriage, and separately have some anti-tax argument against licensing.
Click to expand...


And I don't think the State is bringing in a lot of income that way, either. At least not in NC.

Mrs. qg and I got married by a magistrate. I can't remember what the license cost, or the magistrate's fee, but it was pretty trivial. They'd have to have people lined up all day long to make any real money that way.

It wouldn't surprise me much if they just broke even on the deal.
 
quadraginta said:
And I don't think the State is bringing in a lot of income that way, either. At least not in NC.

Mrs. qg and I got married by a magistrate. I can't remember what the license cost, or the magistrate's fee, but it was pretty trivial. They'd have to have people lined up all day long to make any real money that way.

It wouldn't surprise me much if they just broke even on the deal.
Click to expand...
The state gets paid on the back end.
 
quadraginta said:
And I don't think the State is bringing in a lot of income that way, either. At least not in NC.

Mrs. qg and I got married by a magistrate. I can't remember what the license cost, or the magistrate's fee, but it was pretty trivial. They'd have to have people lined up all day long to make any real money that way.

It wouldn't surprise me much if they just broke even on the deal.
Click to expand...

I got a NY license three months ago and it was $40. Reasonable for the time and overhead of having an office.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Only about 60% of male homosexuals have anal sex. This rate is higher but given the small percentages of homosexuals it is small in absolute numbers compared to heterosexual anal sex.

Let's see if the concept of pegging will make his head explode
Click to expand...

I think around 70% of all het porn involves anal sex these days. And given the sales of anal lube and etc, I expect that the under-30 crowd is very into it.
 
Man--everytime I look at this thread, discussion has moved along a lot, and I'm waaaay behind. . .

DarbyII said:
The issue is not that the State should stop legally sanctioning marriage. Of course the institution needs civil law to protect the rights of the participants. The issue is the licensing part. There's no reason on God's green Earth to require people to obtain a license (permission) from the State to get married.

Get rid of licensing. That's the business that the State needs to get out of. Look at the mess we have as the proponents work us over in the media trying to propogandize one or the other position here. We get blithering idiots (read that "experts")on one side saying that gay couples can't properly raise children because they are, well, gay. This is followed by equally blithering idiots who say that gays make better parents because they are...sensitive people. No proof one way or the other, have you, but people buy into the crap.

In reality I don't know which position has validity but I suspect neither. In any case they're talking about married couples (gay and straight) raising children and we don't require a license to have children from anyone. There's no requirement for a heterosexual unmarried couple to ask the State's permission to have children. And they do have them - lot's of them. (Refer to my request in the previous post.)

We can argue the morality, ethics, religion, etc. angles until we are blue in the face but it won't justify a State licensing requirement. We already have immoral, unethical and irreverent people who are "married with license." The license requirement doesn't assure good behavior or even serve a necessary function of the State - other than yet another tax to pay so the State can hire more government employees to process the unnecessary licenses and SEIU can garner more dues from government union membership which is collected by yet other government employees in the treasurer's office to be delivered to the unon bank account. (It's late and I'm now officially rambling.)
Click to expand...

I hadn't considered this, but I'm at least sympathetic to it.

There are a number of state interests in marriage-- at least there have been. Polygamy is still illegal, so there is a state interest in preventing that. There are state interests in identifying "marriages" for tax purposes (though I can see doing away with that).

It would still require each state to make this decision, I suppose, and make all the changes in their laws (that might be a matter of cleaning up outdating stuff).

My approach, to prohibit states from granting any civil recognition to religious acts (including no longer having religious ministers acting as religious ministers to be recognized as state agents for purposes of marriage certificates or executing marriage licenses or whatever) could be done (and should be done) by the SCOTUS as a Constitutional issue.

I don't know if there's an valid argument that could be made that the federal government (either Congress or the judiciary) has an interest in prohibiting the states from issuing marriage licenses based on the fact that the status quo fails to grant equal protection to everyone. . . .
 
Robert Prey said:
Appealing to nature is hardly a fallacy,
Click to expand...
Yes it is.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html

but refusing to acknowledge nature is.
Click to expand...

If you want to use "nature" strictly, then anything that happens is nature. (Homosexuality isn't supernatural!) Otherwise, it's just a way of claiming that your moral opinion is somehow objectively correct based on "nature"--and that is fallacious.

ETA: In nature, most other primates aren't monogamous and many of them practice infanticide. Does it follow that monogamy and criminalizing infanticide in humans is wrong because it is "unnatural"?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom