You know what is truly bizarre about anti-gay marriage rants that dredge up the whole “natural world”? (And I don’t mean the fact that the natural world has witnessed millions of years of same sex fucking among human and other species.) It’s the implication that even though heterosexual relations are oh so very natural… there is the sense that heterosexual attraction is this incredibly fragile thing, balanced on the precipice, at the risk of being tossed over the edge by the slightest breeze, the slightest hint of teh gay, into a deadly mire of homosexuality that will destroy humanity in a holocaust of infertility.
If it’s so natural, how is it so easily endangered? If I, a lesbian, get married and move in next to a straight couple, will they and all their children and pets suddenly turn into raging homos if they catch a glimpse of us grilling in the back yard? Will the couple suddenly decide that their marriage has no value and run out to get a quickie no-fault divorce?
If the tradition of marriage is so natural, so solidly established in history, then why is there this underlying implication that a few married gays here and there are going to bring down the whole social structure of marriage and family into a giant pile of rubble? Come on, now. Is it a solid edifice or a house of cards?
I think the thought of what grilling could be just made me undergo lesbofication.
I haven’t been keeping up on this thread. Can someone catch me up, the last time I looked at it Magellan was being a complete retard. Where have we progressed since then?
He’s going for the “we shouldn’t change how we do things because we’ve always done things this way” tac. I’m not sure that qualifies as complete retardedness, but it does incite me to vacate from any grassy area of his.
This is why there’s no point in trying to convince magellan01 of anything. We’re at the beginning of the end of this war. I don’t know if it’s going to be ten years or forty years, but within my lifetime, people like him will be relegated to the trash heap of history where they belong.
Haha… thanks jayjay! You may not have have convinced magellan01 but you convinced me. I am changing my stance of for allowing SSM to really for allowing SSM. I know, not much of a change but I figure every little bit helps right?
BrightNShiny, could you do me a favor and post the title and author of that book? It sounds interesting, and I’m too lazy to wade through the threads looking for it. Thanks!
Whenever I hear something like this I flash to Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof singing “TRADITIOOOOONNNN!” Then I think of George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door, and other desperate racists of that time. So unwilling to learn and change, and for such inane reasons.
Oh well, mhendo is right - rationality generally wins in the end. Just takes time. Even Wallace came around later in life.
[kindergarten]At least he’s an ignorant moron on tough legal-historical questions and not simple 2nd grade grammar like its vs. it’s.[/kindergarten]
500 pages…you make it sound like a lot, but it was always one man and one woman, wasn’t it? Were there mostly substantive changes or things like signing this form instead or how many witnesses or age variation? I mean, things that could be said about driving, school, building codes or baseball.
I’m not aware that there’s a “special bond” that can happen between a man and a woman that cannot happen between two men or women - can you explain this to me? As far as I can tell, gays form the same bonds in relationships that straights do. I don’t know why you say people were “aware” of this as if it was some self-evident truth. You think it’s absurd that it be “elevated” to the same level as man/woman marriage, but you offer absolutely no compelling reason why you believe this. Are gays incapable of loving each other as fully as straights? Much as you hate to admit it, your stance (and that throughout history) is based on bigotry. I don’t give a shit if you have gay friends/family members/whatever - if you’re saying straight relationships are a level above gay ones, you’re a fucking bigot, plain and simple.
Oh, noes. You caught me on a minor error. I guess gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married then.:rolleyes:
God, you are a fucking moron. Go read my post again and the statement I made and what his response was. I was specifically talking about legal definitions surrounding marriage in the state of CA since statehood. Since the state of CA hasn’t “always” existed, the question is not relevant.
But the answer in the US at least is no, it was not always one man and one woman. I don’t know how anyone can be this fucking ignorant of US history and except to be taken seriously. Deseret recognized polygamous marriages, and defacto recognition of polygamous marriages continued until after the Civil War. And if you want to go world-wide, some Tibetan groups practiced polyandry until this was stopped by the Chinese and Indian governments in the 1940-50 period. I can keep listing these things all day.
Are you honestly this dumb? There has been a radical restructuring of the rights of women within marriage since statehood. That includes major issues such as property management rights, property division rights, transfers, creditor rights, etc., etc. You must have been living in a cave not to know this. That’s just but one of the many, many substantive changes that are outlined in the book I have.
If I were of the opinion that the legal rules of marriage have never changed, or have never changed in 161 years, you’d have a point. Since, that’s not near my position, you don’t.
I don’t give a fuck what your stupid-ass position is. I had pointed out to you that it would be difficult to keep civil unions and marriages in sync, because the rules surrounding marriage change often. Instead of trying to find out how often they change and why that poses a difficulty, you came back with “as if they change that often.” Because you’re an idiot who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Like I said earlier, you’re on your way to the trash heap of history, so I don’t have to convince you of anything. I’ll just keep pointing out what an ignorant moron you are.
This sounds like goalpost-moving to me (and a real example, not the disingenuous phony-baloney stuff magellan was accusing me of). First a claim that marriage has been consistent worldwide for 10,000 years, confronted with evidence that it has changed somewhat in the relatively minuscule past 161 years in just California, but somehow this is dismissible, or maybe it’s dismissible because of an incorrect usage of “its” or something.
Anyway, magellan’s post #355 looks like he’s being coy about his personal feelings, holding out the escape clause that he’s personally okay with SSM; he just recognizes the validity of the anti argument. At this point I’ve lost track, but I thought it worth noting in case of a future “gotcha!” moment.
So how far back should serious efforts at establishing SSM go before they count?
