It is currently Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:07 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Goose & Gander: Procreation required for marriage
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:16 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:27 am
Posts: 4085
Location: Planet Earth
I found this interesting. See link below for a press release about group in Washington State seeking a law to require procreation as part of definition of legal marriage:

http://www.wa-doma.org/news/PR20060126.aspx

_________________
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:24 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm
Posts: 6215
Location: in the dog house
Oh crap! I got married in Seattle temple over 3 years ago and I don't have any kids yet.

I seriously doubt this will pass.

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Goose & Gander: Procreation required for marriage
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:00 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:16 pm
Posts: 1372
Rollo Tomasi wrote:
I found this interesting. See link below for a press release about group in Washington State seeking a law to require procreation as part of definition of legal marriage:

http://www.wa-doma.org/news/PR20060126.aspx


So, an couple in which the woman is infertile or the man sterile cannot legally be married?

_________________
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:08 pm 
Anonymous Coward
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:39 pm
Posts: 1676
Location: i iz in ur messuj bord
Oh. My. God. Are these people serious? This makes no sense whatsoever, and effectively bars a majority of people from marriage. And what of adoption? Are they invalidating this as a means of forming a family? Or what about if a couple marries, and one spouse has children from a prior marriage, and they decide not to have any other children together. Does that mean their marriage will be annulled? And as for the part that creates a marriage between two people if they have kids - what if one of them then has a kid with someone else - are we talking about state-created polygamy? There are at least a hundred other situations that would be problematic.

Yet another reason why the government needs to get out of the business of marriages altogether. There should be true separation of church and state, where religions can do whatever they want by way of who they allow to marry, and the state can deal with civil unions (like those countries in South America, where you get a civil marriage, then can do a religious one if you want - the religious ceremony has no legal standing).

_________________
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:32 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:27 am
Posts: 4085
Location: Planet Earth
skippy the dead wrote:
Oh. My. God. Are these people serious? This makes no sense whatsoever, and effectively bars a majority of people from marriage.

No, they are not serious. Their point is to demonstrate how absurd it is to justify a law against gay marriage based on "procreation."

Quote:
And what of adoption? Are they invalidating this as a means of forming a family? Or what about if a couple marries, and one spouse has children from a prior marriage, and they decide not to have any other children together. Does that mean their marriage will be annulled?

Their point is that married gay folks can do all this just like heterosexuals can.

Quote:
Yet another reason why the government needs to get out of the business of marriages altogether. There should be true separation of church and state, where religions can do whatever they want by way of who they allow to marry, and the state can deal with civil unions (like those countries in South America, where you get a civil marriage, then can do a religious one if you want - the religious ceremony has no legal standing).

I completely agree. Let churches be homophobic, but not the government.

_________________
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:13 pm 
Anonymous Coward
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:39 pm
Posts: 1676
Location: i iz in ur messuj bord
Rollo Tomasi wrote:
No, they are not serious. Their point is to demonstrate how absurd it is to justify a law against gay marriage based on "procreation."


Whew. I suppose my first reaction was a bit too intense - I missed the irony.

When I was a BYU law student, many classmates would use the "the purpose of marriage is procreation" argument to justify their opposition to gay marriage. I would counter with various scenarios where procreation would not be possible (infertile woman, slow swimmers, older couple, etc. - asking "should these people not be allowed to marry?") that they could never effectively rebut, but of course that never succeeded in anybody expanding their opinions. They would just repeat the procreation argument over and over, as if continued repetition would somehow validate it.

_________________
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:27 pm 
Lightbearer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:06 pm
Posts: 5659
Location: las vegas
How many signatures would it take to get homosexuality declared as an illegal perversion comparable to beastiality?

_________________
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:46 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Gazelam wrote:
How many signatures would it take to get homosexuality declared as an illegal perversion comparable to beastiality?


More than you will ever collect. Your one signature is not enough to get anything on the ballot.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:47 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
skippy the dead wrote:
Rollo Tomasi wrote:
No, they are not serious. Their point is to demonstrate how absurd it is to justify a law against gay marriage based on "procreation."


Whew. I suppose my first reaction was a bit too intense - I missed the irony.

When I was a BYU law student, many classmates would use the "the purpose of marriage is procreation" argument to justify their opposition to gay marriage. I would counter with various scenarios where procreation would not be possible (infertile woman, slow swimmers, older couple, etc. - asking "should these people not be allowed to marry?") that they could never effectively rebut, but of course that never succeeded in anybody expanding their opinions. They would just repeat the procreation argument over and over, as if continued repetition would somehow validate it.


Another BYU law student. Did you graduate? Are you familiar with Smac and Confidential Informant, also both former BYU law students?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:03 pm 
Anonymous Coward
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:39 pm
Posts: 1676
Location: i iz in ur messuj bord
harmony wrote:
Another BYU law student. Did you graduate? Are you familiar with Smac and Confidential Informant, also both former BYU law students?


Yup - I done did graduated. I've read their posts - can't say I always agree with their analyses of legal issues (in particular there was a lengthy thread a little while back about resignation from a religion and its effect on any pending ecclesiastical proceedings in which Smac relied entirely too much on footnotes in a dissenting opinion to be persuasive to me). Nonetheless, I enjoy reading their contributions. Do you know when they graduated?

_________________
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:47 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm
Posts: 6215
Location: in the dog house
Why should the state recognize gay marriage, but not the relationship (hopefully non-sexual) of a couple of siblings living together? What if they want benefits? What if they care for other children? What if . . .

Anyhow, my converstaion with the lawyers on MA&D has convinced me that there is no legal reason that we must extend the definition of marriages to include same-sex couples. They have me convinced that exceptions (such as childless heterosexual couples) is not sufficient reason to overturn a law. Now in that context, they were talking about the Supreme Court trying to change the law. I am 100% for putting it to the vote of the people. Actually, I would kind of prefer to leave marriage to churches and get the government out of that. Let the government concern itself only with making sure children are well provided for. Let gays make their own organization and call it marriage. Just don't expect others to recognize it as legitimate. One would, however, have to ensure that companies treat a homosexual's spouse the same as a heterosexual's spouse. And then there's always the question of polygamy.

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:52 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Quote:
Just don't expect others to recognize it as legitimate. One would, however, have to ensure that companies treat a homosexual's spouse the same as a heterosexual's spouse.


Doesn't treating a homosexual spouse the same way a company treats a heterosexual spouse make homosexual marriage legitimate?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:23 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:27 am
Posts: 4085
Location: Planet Earth
skippy the dead wrote:
I've read their posts - can't say I always agree with their analyses of legal issues (in particular there was a lengthy thread a little while back about resignation from a religion and its effect on any pending ecclesiastical proceedings in which Smac relied entirely too much on footnotes in a dissenting opinion to be persuasive to me).

I remember that thread -- I went at it with Smac and C.I., and I too was unimpressed with Smac's heavy reliance on the dissenting opinion.

_________________
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:17 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm
Posts: 6215
Location: in the dog house
harmony wrote:
Quote:
Just don't expect others to recognize it as legitimate. One would, however, have to ensure that companies treat a homosexual's spouse the same as a heterosexual's spouse.


Doesn't treating a homosexual spouse the same way a company treats a heterosexual spouse make homosexual marriage legitimate?


No, it makes homosexuals legitimate people and keeps businesses from discriminating against them based on their sins (which are not criminal and are nobody's business). The relationship thing is just to emphasize that I would prefer for the government not to be in the marriage business for heterosexuals either. If the government has no distinction for hetero vs homo, then I think that removes the barrier to providing benefits for one couple and not providing them to the other.

Again, this is just my opinion. I am against having the supreme court mandate that homosexual unions must be recognized by the state. I think such a thing needs to go to a vote instead. To see the reasoning, you'll have to look at the thread with Smac, C.I., USU78, Sleeping Willow, and your's truly.

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:28 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
asbestosman wrote:
harmony wrote:
Quote:
Just don't expect others to recognize it as legitimate. One would, however, have to ensure that companies treat a homosexual's spouse the same as a heterosexual's spouse.


Doesn't treating a homosexual spouse the same way a company treats a heterosexual spouse make homosexual marriage legitimate?


No, it makes homosexuals legitimate people and keeps businesses from discriminating against them based on their sins (which are not criminal and are nobody's business). The relationship thing is just to emphasize that I would prefer for the government not to be in the marriage business for heterosexuals either. If the government has no distinction for hetero vs homo, then I think that removes the barrier to providing benefits for one couple and not providing them to the other.

Again, this is just my opinion. I am against having the supreme court mandate that homosexual unions must be recognized by the state. I think such a thing needs to go to a vote instead. To see the reasoning, you'll have to look at the thread with Smac, C.I., USU78, Sleeping Willow, and your's truly.


Perhaps it's religion that should get out of the marriage business. After all, marriage is about inheritance and property.

And the tyranny of the majority is the reason we have courts. If it were not so, would non-white children still be barred from white schools? Would women still be dying from back alley abortions? Would any court decision regarding minorities have ever been upheld?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group