Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

the next person who lectures me on the roots of marriage makes me wonder how far to them people wanna go back...like to the passing on the wife to teh brother after you die days?

"roots of marriage"=statement that means ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING

idk if you rephrase that as "race is a fundamental characteristic of a human being" then it immediately complicates things. I think the more you essentialise as internal what are really external social characteristics

don't think it does this, can external social characteristics not be "fundamental"? in the sense that, historically, they have been pretty fundamental to how people of certain races and sexualities have been treated, legally & otherwise

Re: Paul, I don't see how someone can be a self-professed libertarian then at the same time be such a roll-over pussy when it comes to social issues. As long as the government is not using tax payer money to force gay people to get married, why should he give a shit?*

*Rhetorical question ignoring Realpolitik.

no way, we voted you off the island, the will of the people is not being heeded.

I'm as wary about this being decided by a court as I am about Roe vs. Wade instead of a law or constituional amendment, but there are things that we cannot vote on w/o changing the Constitution and that IS what the judiciary is there for and if they write stupid laws and then defend them fecklessly, this is exactly what happens.

American Libertarians are never sure where they fall in the debate between individual liberties and the 'reserved to the States or the people' right of more local governments to fuck w/people for any reason whatsoever.

Sexual orientation isn't a defining characteristic of a human being until puberty hits yo.

not sure what puberty has to do with it

I know PLENTY of people whose sexual orientation was well established prior to puberty

It didn't happen with me until I turned twenty-three, read a Rufus Wainwright interview, and thought, "Tools like this can't keep chumming the water. I'm coming out."

:-O wait I mean :-|

I was a total flirt with the ladies well before puberty.

lol @ alfred!!

wait WTF? that post was supposed to go in the ilxor sexuality thread. zing done messed up. xp

i didn't meet my first openly gay person until college BUT that's coz I lived in a part of town where homosexuality, while not a death sentence, would subject the outed person to unbearable amounts of ridicule. so I suspect I knew many more who just were too afraid

William Duncan, from an altogether delightful post:

The second, more fundamental problem stems from the reality that marriage has always been understood, with very few exceptions, as the union of a man and a woman. This is true across time, across cultures, across religious traditions, etc. Does it really seem likely that this remarkable consensus is nothing but a nasty desire of one group to flaunt its privileged position over a minority? Is it really feasible that the world’s cultures all consulted about how to put down gay people and came up with marriage as the solution? Judge Walker seems to think gender and children have nothing to do with marriage; the facts suggest precisely the opposite. All of this just to say that the idea that marriage is a homophobic conspiracy is a conclusion not anchored in reality.

The second, more fundamental problem stems from the reality that marriage has always been understood, with very few exceptions, as the union of a man and a woman

seriously how many more times does this have to be refuted before people stop trying to argue it

i didn't meet my first openly gay person until college BUT that's coz I lived in a part of town where homosexuality, while not a death sentence, would subject the outed person to unbearable amounts of ridicule.

A "part of town"? I didn't meet my first openly gay person until college, either, but I assumed that was just because I went to high school in the early '90s.

as the union of a man and a woman.

Tell that to Genghis Khan or Mohammed or Solomon...

or those penguins

Fornicating penguins! Penguin lust!

yeah im working on legalising bestial marriage so this is progress imo.

Bestial polygamy is what we need, though!

slippery slope
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/4294/apeng13za.gif

http://image.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/e/ea/earlyopus_bc.jpg

ohh baby

btw u guyz are all obsessed w/ ur founding fathers. its kindof weird i think.

can't wait til I can marry my box turtle. I loves you Shelly!

btw u guyz are all obsessed w/ ur founding fathers. its kindof weird i think

No we're not, we're obsessed with you. We LOVE you.

?

just think that if somebody got on their patrick pearse here, they'd get a facefull of eyerolls

prob with the usa is that they started off with the brits in charge, then kicked em out, then tried to come up with a governing system. totally the wrong way round imo

true -- we should've left the Brits in charge.

come on t ur a pure unionist i saw you out on the 12th

orange is my colour

of my true love's hair

you say that very brazenly for a guy that's posted his pic on this site, plax

verry brazenly, all i'm sayin

appro dn btw

ha!

'ye didn't pick up ye're 'cis' from the wind, yabuckya, 'cis' i ask ya'

Worth nothing the judge's political backers. What a San Francisco liberal.

Judge Walker was first appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, at the recommendation of Attorney General Edwin Meese III (now the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation). Democratic opposition led by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) prevented the nomination from coming to a vote during Reagan’s term. Walker was renominated by President George H. W. Bush in February 1989. Again the Democratic Senate refused to act on the nomination. Finally Bush renominated Walker in August, and the Senate confirmed him in December.

lol

Thanks Ronnie!

HE'S SETTING UP 2010 WEDGE ISSUE DON'T YOU SEE?!

ER, 2012!!

2010 and 2012, potentially

This is going to get interesting.

gay buddy of mine vocally complaining how Obama and Bush II are the only living presidents not to come out in support of gay marriage. I got kinda irritated. Which would you prefer, a president who passes DOMA and then reverses his position once out of office, or a guy like Obama who's on record for stating that he wants DOMA repealed (and Prop 8 as well) but that he "personally" doesn't approve of gays marrying. POLICY IS WHAT MATTERS. always a sore spot with me.

did you mean Clinton instead of Bush II?

obama has been pretty static in comp. w. his "fierce advocate" claim so i dont really see how different he is there

did you mean Clinton instead of Bush II?

no I didn't. Clinton recently "changed his mind" about gay marriage dontchaknow