Slog Comments
And Now, the R-74 Ballot Language Progressives Would Like to See
3
What you're missing is that hate mongers/bigots are challenging the law, so it's on hold until voters get to decide if some one else can get married.
4
@1, yes, basically those challenging the law have until June 1st (I believe) to come up with a valid referendum (language-wise) and gather a certain amount of signatures. If they don't by then, this goes into law. If they do, the law is on hold until the November ballot decides it one way or the other.
6
The last clause of the Concise Description is misplaced and makes it sound like religious organizations etc. are not required to preserve domestic partnerships for seniors. Don't they have an editor?
7
Correction-
'Redefine marriage' is accurate as incidentally is 'gay marriage'. Finding that langage inflammatory just means you have a problem understanding reality.
You know, the same kind of problem that a person who doesn't understand basic human sexuality (men have sex with women and vice versa by design) have. The same kind of denial of reality liberals have on every topic from social matters to econics actually....
'Redefine marriage' is accurate as incidentally is 'gay marriage'. Finding that langage inflammatory just means you have a problem understanding reality.
You know, the same kind of problem that a person who doesn't understand basic human sexuality (men have sex with women and vice versa by design) have. The same kind of denial of reality liberals have on every topic from social matters to econics actually....
10
The problem with the "redefinition" argument is that it assumes that the definition of marriage has been the same throughout this entire time. It hasn't been. Every state has a different definition, every nation has, every religion and so on. The gender-based restriction is also a red herring since at one point it was not the gender that people were marrying it was a type of property. In fact, it's hard to even know that the rites that gave a woman over to a man as property were any different from those that gave away enslaved males who had the same function and features save for producing children -- in which case the men in position of ownership were free to casually impregnate someone else outside of their marriage.
Then again, that's the problem with hanging your hat on 5,000 year old "traditions".
Then again, that's the problem with hanging your hat on 5,000 year old "traditions".
11
"by design" Here comes the GOD speak again. KEEP your religion OUT of the lives of those that don't want it.
12
@11 Sargon, "godspeak" is one word, which I will carefully explain to you the next time we have dinner.
13
You know, the same kind of problem that a person who doesn't understand basic human sexuality (men have sex with women and vice versa by design) have.Provide evidence of design. Please be specific. Be sure to explain, also, how elderly and infertile couples, currently allowed marriage by unchallenged law, fulfill this design.
14
I didn't see Michealangelo sculpt the Pieta. I haven't seen firsthand evidence that anyone, he or anyone else, did either. Yet I have a very difficult time seeing that masterful work as the result of the actions of water and wind on marble, for some reason.
But whether the design was that of a creator or the much less believable lightning bolt and primordial swamp notion isn't really the point. Human men are biologically suited to have sex with human women. I don't try to eat with my elbows rather than my mouth. I don't try to eliminate waste from my ears. And I see no reason to see homosexual sex as anything but a denial of basic biological realities, whatever their origin.
And I note with interest that nobody has produced the multiple historical interests of homosexual marriage over many cultures and times. Anyone? At all? No? All right then, quit the bullshit about this just being another evolution of marriage, m'kay. Whether women were viewed as chattel or cherished helpmeets, men as owners or loved husbands, and whether marriage was a childless couple or polygamous mess, it has always, always, always been between a man and a woman. Period. And it always will be, whatever you reality challenged gomers pass into law or don't.
But whether the design was that of a creator or the much less believable lightning bolt and primordial swamp notion isn't really the point. Human men are biologically suited to have sex with human women. I don't try to eat with my elbows rather than my mouth. I don't try to eliminate waste from my ears. And I see no reason to see homosexual sex as anything but a denial of basic biological realities, whatever their origin.
And I note with interest that nobody has produced the multiple historical interests of homosexual marriage over many cultures and times. Anyone? At all? No? All right then, quit the bullshit about this just being another evolution of marriage, m'kay. Whether women were viewed as chattel or cherished helpmeets, men as owners or loved husbands, and whether marriage was a childless couple or polygamous mess, it has always, always, always been between a man and a woman. Period. And it always will be, whatever you reality challenged gomers pass into law or don't.
15
@11
Uhh, no, but thanks for asking! We live in a democratic country, and if your minority bigotry towards Christianity makes you feel excluded that's kind of your own fault, bucko.
However, I didn't write a single thing about God, Christian or otherwise, just as an FYI. I realize your virulent bigotry sees deistic crushing of the rights of the poor wittle atheists everywhere, but here again reality and your delusions aren't in sync.
However, I do humbly ask your pardon for a very basic mistake. Clearly 'gay' and 'marriage' are mutually exclusive terms, not to be used in conjunction as I did @7. Apologies.
Uhh, no, but thanks for asking! We live in a democratic country, and if your minority bigotry towards Christianity makes you feel excluded that's kind of your own fault, bucko.
However, I didn't write a single thing about God, Christian or otherwise, just as an FYI. I realize your virulent bigotry sees deistic crushing of the rights of the poor wittle atheists everywhere, but here again reality and your delusions aren't in sync.
However, I do humbly ask your pardon for a very basic mistake. Clearly 'gay' and 'marriage' are mutually exclusive terms, not to be used in conjunction as I did @7. Apologies.
16
SeattleBlues: Have you ever tried gay sex? Because it works out pretty well, actually.
Not being able to produce offspring is just an added bonus.
Not being able to produce offspring is just an added bonus.
17
The recently passed law does not redefine marriage any more than getting rid of "whites only" water fountains redefined hydration.
(And Rosa Parks wasn't attempting to redefine public transportation, either.)
I hope the court eliminates right-wing attack words from what is supposed to be a neutral description of the ballot measure.
(And Rosa Parks wasn't attempting to redefine public transportation, either.)
I hope the court eliminates right-wing attack words from what is supposed to be a neutral description of the ballot measure.
18
@7: Finally got over your case of butthurt? Ah well, I guess butthurt can't be a terminal disease after all.
@14: The belief that complexity cannot exist without conscious intent is a mark of small minds. Please cite one aspect of biology that you believe could not have arisen through natural selection.
Also, we've given you this more than once. Please don't feign ignorance about the history of gay-on-gay marriage.
@15: "KEEP your religion OUT of the lives of those that don't want it."
"your minority bigotry towards Christianity"
LOL.
Seriously, is it anti-Christian bigotry when non-Christians ask that Christians not force their personal beliefs on them? If that is so, by all means, call me a slanderous Christian-hater.
@14: The belief that complexity cannot exist without conscious intent is a mark of small minds. Please cite one aspect of biology that you believe could not have arisen through natural selection.
Also, we've given you this more than once. Please don't feign ignorance about the history of gay-on-gay marriage.
@15: "KEEP your religion OUT of the lives of those that don't want it."
"your minority bigotry towards Christianity"
LOL.
Seriously, is it anti-Christian bigotry when non-Christians ask that Christians not force their personal beliefs on them? If that is so, by all means, call me a slanderous Christian-hater.
19
I didn't see Michealangelo sculpt the Pieta. I haven't seen firsthand evidence that anyone, he or anyone else, did either. Yet I have a very difficult time seeing that masterful work as the result of the actions of water and wind on marble, for some reason.Probably because we know that rocks are not generally shaped that way, and the resemblance of inorganic forms to organic ones generally requires some level of alteration. Inference of design in nature has no such simple inductive pathway to follow. Indeed, inferring design in nature strikes me as backwards. All design is an attempt to replicate natural forms; thus, it is not nature that appears designed, but design that resembles nature, for obvious reasons. The "irreducible complexity" of natural form is, most likely (from a pantheist's view, in any case) the failure of order to replicate the genius of chaos.
But whether the design was that of a creator or the much less believable lightning bolt and primordial swamp notion isn't really the point. Human men are biologically suited to have sex with human women.If we limit our discussion of sex to procreative sex, sure. Minus that, individuals are highly suited to have sex with those to whom they are erotically drawn (and who are erotically drawn to them). The most suitable sexual partner to he or she who isn't seeking to breed (and even many who are) is going to be the one who gets you off, or the one whom you can get off.
And I note with interest that nobody has produced the multiple historical interests of homosexual marriage over many cultures and times. Anyone? At all? No? All right then, quit the bullshit about this just being another evolution of marriage, m'kay. Whether women were viewed as chattel or cherished helpmeets, men as owners or loved husbands, and whether marriage was a childless couple or polygamous mess, it has always, always, always been between a man and a woman. Period. And it always will be, whatever you reality challenged gomers pass into law or don't.I'll leave the research to people less busy writing plays and having sex with their spouses than I am, but I have to wonder--what difference does it make? The point is that the definition of marriage has changed. Polygamy has actually been the most historically prevalent form. Given that, how can you say it's always been a man and a woman, given situations in which it's been a man and several women, or a woman and several men? What about the same-sex marriages of the Arakmbut?
20
Oh, and @15 . . . Yes, we live in a democratic country. We also live in a country where free exercise of religion is guaranteed, which necessary includes freedom of irreligion (in addition to free exercise of you. We may use whatever reasoning we care to in the voting booth, of course, but the government is (for the most part, and it should be where it is not) hobbled in its capacity to regulate behavior in such a way as to impede our right to moral self-determination. It oughtn't to be regulating how we receive our consensual pleasures, and it surely shouldn't be offering you any special incentives to cohabitate with your wife simply because you're able to poison our world with your unfortunate wife's womb-rats.
21
@seattleblues
There are multiple publications regarding the historical context about homosexual relationships, homosexuals, and famous homosexuals. I'm assuming you know how to read? Go look it up. You continue to plague us with your myths. It is incumbent upon yourself to educate yourself. Otherwise we'll have no other choice but to think you are simply lazy, bigoted, and full of opinions that no one really cares about.
There are multiple publications regarding the historical context about homosexual relationships, homosexuals, and famous homosexuals. I'm assuming you know how to read? Go look it up. You continue to plague us with your myths. It is incumbent upon yourself to educate yourself. Otherwise we'll have no other choice but to think you are simply lazy, bigoted, and full of opinions that no one really cares about.
22
@seattleblues
Yours is to oppress... Ours is to free. See the difference, you bigoted, mindless, reich-wing fantatic?
Yours is to oppress... Ours is to free. See the difference, you bigoted, mindless, reich-wing fantatic?
Comments (23) RSS