Prop 8 Court Case

Indeed. I fully support getting rid of the term “marriage” and let the nutjob Christians keep their God-sanctioned man-woman system to themselves.

Does ‘corporate’ mean physical in that context? That seems weird, but I don’t totally get your point.

Was there anything after about the poor working conditions at Rockstar San Diego?

I think that it’s not the intention of procreating that’s important, but the possibility of procreation. Unless one or both partners has opted for some sterilization procedures (or the partners opt out of sexual relations–not likely!), the possibility for procreation exists.

If they want the possibility of procreation to exists, then post-menopausal women should be forbidden to get married.

However, the bigger question is why the state would have an interest in the individual’s decision (or ability) to procreate.

I think it was the sterility of the bio that caught my eye. Like Commander Data was litigating an academic issue before Vulcan stoics or something. I mean how romantic were those vows, right?

But some of the arguments used by the Prop 8 defenders as referred to in this thread reminded me of it. That’s all.

I lolled.

Wow, Pogo, your anti-Christian bigotry does you credit.

Thanks. They can keep their fucking Bible rules and homosexual bigotry out of government. The wide-spread traditional notion of marriage is being fought for by Christians. Fuck them. Get rid of the tie between marriage and civil union, let them sanction marriage as man-woman in their churches like they’re free to do, and get the fuck out of government.

Go ahead and ask any son of a bitch opposing gay marriage (in America, at least, it’s not like Muslims are fighting for same sex marriage either) what his religion is, and see if they don’t say Christian. I’ll wait.

While I can understand where this comes from, especially with those that call themselves Christians who also think they speak for everyone, even the country at times, please refrain from broad generalizations like that. Please.

Hell, you live in NC like me Pogo, we’ve both seen that bigotry isn’t necessarily based on religion. It’s based on a lot of things. Your statement is a bit akin to saying “all Southerners are racist.” Um, no, not even close.

You’re right, I don’t make the distinction with my blanket hyperbole, I always assume it’d be implied, just as not all Christians believe the earth is 10,000 years old.

It’s not?


That IS rather astonishing. Once upon a time, that might have been the main reason for the legal institution of marriage (as opposed to the social construct of marriage, or the religious sacrament of marriage). I don’t know when it changed, but I’m pretty sure it was before the 1970s. I wonder if it had ever been true since WW2.

yes —^

Geez. It’s not as if Christianity – or even religion – invented the idea of “marriage.”

As I said above, there’s basically three things “marriage” refers to. The first is a social construct. The big wedding, the girl in white and the guy in a tux, the bridesmaids and the groomsmen, the groom’s family on the left and the bride’s on the right… that’s all tradition. Doesn’t have dick to do with religion.

Then you have the priest in the middle reading from the Book of Ruth and Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. That’s religion.

Then you have all the stuff that says, basically, “If the guy dicks around, the girl can ditch him and find someone else, and the guy has to send her all of his money so she can keep raising the kids.”

Now as to that latter stuff, if that’s all the law said about marriage, and if there weren’t a whole bunch of social and private programs and, you know, JOBS available for women and things like that, and if WW2 had never happened and people didn’t fall in love but instead chose mates based on reproductive things and if sterility were grounds for divorce and if the pill hadn’t happened and there we’d never figured out the whole abortion thing and if the entire New Deal had never happened and if people were still thinking that women existed for giving babies and if the stigma was still on those who couldn’t give birth as opposed to those who have 19 kids etc. etc. etc. then MAYBE the defendants of Prop 8 would have a point. Or a case.

But it ain’t so they don’t.

And, by implication, neither do you.

Um … I don’t think Pogo is for Prop 8, Rimbo.

The scary part is if the Prop 8 people win in court, could they then come back and define marriage as only possible if there is a potential for procreation?? That would be pretty significantly awful…but I wouldn’t put it past them. I’d have to produce an ultrasound proving I still have a uterus and something (yuck) to show I’m not menopausal??? Could you just see that happening at the marriage clerk’s office?

None of this matters in the court of public opinion. Inventing the idea has no matter. You would have to argue that it’s not the case the majority of public and media outcry against same-sex marriage is done in the name of Jesus. I suppose there are some references where this isn’t the case, but just about every asshole that says “marriage is between a man and a woman, period” either invokes the Bible or dodges the question of “why?”

The three largest Christian denominations in America are against same sex unions and religion has nothing to do with it? Please… (edit: I know you’re not saying that, and in response to your below comment, I’m suggesting that the opposition to gay marriage is usually spearheaded by self-professed Christians)

I’m not saying he is. I’m saying that he’s just as wrong for suggesting that marriage is a Christian thing as the Prop 8 defenders are for suggesting that marriage is for procreation.

Sorry sir, carry on.

So vasectomy = divorce? Neat.

I bet they all eat tomatoes, too. Damn all the people who eat tomatoes and their homophobia!

What about all the people who invoke the Bible when they attack Prop 8? What about all the Christians who are not only promoting gay marriage, but are ministers and priests officiating over gay marriage ceremonies?

What I’m saying here is that even if some (or even MOST) people are using religion to justify their opposition to gay marriage, that this very different from those objections stemming from a particular religion. If you go to e.g. China, you’ll see people using Maoism (“interests of the state”) to oppose homosexuality. The religion itself is just a tool for demagogues to rile people up, and not opposed to homosexuality itself (any more than it opposes, say, shaving – Leviticus 19:27).

It’s simply an artifact of most Americans happening to be Christians.