Virginia Gay Marriage Ban Moves Forward

[Killfile]

Virginia's House voted overwhelmingly to pass an amendment to the Commonwealth's constitution outlawing gay marriage this week. The measure, which must go before voters before it's final approval - and thus can not be fully enacted until much later this year, has been criticized by Virginia Democrats as everything from badly worded to unconstitutional and narrow-minded to a new form of Jim Crowe.

True to their stellar form, the Virginia Republicans have drafted an amendment that could effectively nullify contracts and other legal arrangements between any two individuals of the same sex, unmarried individuals of opposite sexes, and generally throw the state's legal system into chaos.

The amendment "says in part that the Virginia Constitution should not recognize 'a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals.'" [source]

[vtwahoo]

I have a friend who is a Turkish Muslim woman. When the VA state legislature tried to outlaw hip huggers last year she called us sexually repressed. There's something really depressing about being told your society is sexually repressed by a Muslim woman.

Leaving the constitutional, legal, theoretical, moral, and politically issues aside for the moment I have just one request: can someone who actually agrees with this ban on homosexual and common law marriages please explain to me what in God's name is the American obsession with who is having sex with whom?

[Tempest]

For the moment, can someone who actually agrees with this ban on homosexual and common law marriages please explain to me what in God's name is the American obsession with who is having sex with whom?

Because Gay people will make gay babies! Wait, no........ Uh, gay parents who adopt children will make them gay by default! .......Nope not that either...... No other county is do-..... nope.........

[panasonic]

whats hip hugging?

[Laik]

I really hate to hear that.

Some people never really seem to put much thought into remembering that the people they are doing wrong are still people. They have feelings too and, even if it goes against what you believe that doesn't automatically makes them evil and bad. If people who had power to make decisions like this realized that the church and the state are actually supposed to be seperated for obvious reasons then we wouldn't be having these sort of problems.

What if things were vice versa and gay people told straight people they couldn't get married? No, what if they went as far to say that it was wrong to be straight and told you that you were going to straight up burn in hell for it? When it comes to gay people and their rights, people seem to get pretty close-minded.

Real glad to see that the people fixing their ties and sitting in their extra comfortable chairs seem to think that this will better America.

[Eldo]

Hugging the hip, I would presume.

[vtwahoo]

Jeans (or other pants I suppose) that are cut low and tight across the hips.

[panasonic]

arent most women jeans hig huggers to begin w/

[vtwahoo]

arent most women jeans hig huggers to begin w/

Yup.

But back to my original question---from someone who agrees with the decision of the Virginia legislature, why do Americans give a damn who is sleeping with whom?

Because I just don't understand it.

I've heard the argument that allowing homosexual marriages will tear apart the very fabric of society resulting in anarchy. But bigots said the same thing about interracial marriages and it didn't happen.

I've heard that it's unfair to the children. I'm not buying that either...as a teacher I've found that children are successful when they are loved and encouraged by good parents...interracial, homosexual, single, divorced, married...doesn't really matter. What children DON'T need is a society that condemns their family...for any reason.

I've heard that homosexual unions will produce overwhelming economic strain. I'm a political economist and I can't figure out one would lead to the other.

So I'm at a loss.

[Ayanami]

Most sane people do not agree with this nonsense I would hope. So if some one who does agree with this nonsense shows up, they probably will not be able to articulate a good answer for ya any way.

Sad that homosexuals are being treated like second class citizens in my state already, and even worse that more states want to endorse this backwards view.

[raziel]

probably cuz it has to do with the idea of procreation. I suppose some feel that some things that are inherently biological (male and female union) should stay that way (interracial didnt interfere with this that much, this was opposed due to ignorance and plain racism)

[vtwahoo]

probably cuz it has to do with the idea of procreation. I suppose some feel that some things that are inherently biological (male and female union) should stay that way (interracial didnt interfere with this that much, this was opposed due to ignorance and plain racism)

Okay...but what do you do about male/female couples that plan from the outset not to have children. Should they be allowed to get married? What about those who cannot have children (for whatever reason) AFTER they are married...should they be required to divorce?

I'm not buying it.

[TheDarkness]

i don't understand the whole problem about this at all... but then again here in holland fay marriage is already commonly accepted as more or less normal. Damn holland actually does have some interesting sides compared to the rest of this mud ball called earth

[raziel]

O but, I'm not asking you to buy it. There are sides to an issue for a reason, I dont expect any to get enlightened and to suddenly convert to the other side.

With that said, I think it's the idea that nature by default creates kids naturally through opposite sexes uniting. It's not like half of the population is gay which would make it seem possible that its natural. I'm not talking about having kids to further the economy and help in supporting the future through your offspring.

Whether the couple can actually have a kid, I think is irrelevant. By design, a heterosexual couple is supposed to be able to have one.

[Ayanami]

You mean if you believe that there is in fact a "design" to us and not just years of evolution.

Homosexuality does incur naturally, just no where near as prominent as heterosexuality. Psi I believe actually put up links of some of the studies that have been done on animals that are actually homosexual.

[Skullkracker]

anyone feeling a de ja vu?

[TheDarkness]

erm to further ayanami's point.... my dog is homosexual....

[vtwahoo]

O but, I'm not asking you to buy it. There are sides to an issue for a reason, I dont expect any to get enlightened and to suddenly convert to the other side.

I'm sorry...which side is "enlightened"?

Whether the couple can actually have a kid, I think is irrelevant. By design, a heterosexual couple is supposed to be able to have one.

But there are some heterosexual couples that, by design, cannot have children. Should they be forbidden to marry? Should men and women who are incapable of having children be prohibited by the state from marrying?

[Killfile]

Who's to say that marriage as an institution is or should be defined by the perpetuation of the species? By that logic, since a single male can impregnate multiple females and since certain traits are more desirable for the good of society, polygamy should be the ONLY legal form of marriage.

Indeed, if we go back to the biological roots of humanity, that kind of social structure is exactly what we see in Great Apes and other primates that are close to humanity.

But we don't do that - and the reason we don't is that biology is a crappy thing to base your civilizations laws around. In the State of Nature, might makes right, the preservation of the genetic code is paramount, and behaviors that do not contribute to the overall group's survival are discouraged - often with deadly force.

Human kind has ascended, though learned behaviors like culture and technology, to transcend our banal biological roots. By doing so we eliminate the need to spend every waking moment worrying about our survival as a species the need to base every decision and custom we have upon that survival.

Since we no longer need to exile the sick or allow the weak to be killed by the elements, perhaps we can do the civilized thing and let people marry for love, instead of breeding rights.

[raziel]

When i said "enlightened" i meant that one side will see the "truth" of the other side and immediately change their beliefs. Basically, I'm saying that no matter what anti-gay activists and pro-choice in gay rights or whatever say, no one will give in and believe in the other side.

If the heterosexual couple can't have kids, there's always adoption. Also, whats to stop the heterosexual couple from marrying anyway.

O yeah, I dont believe in evolution only because i see that by studying various fields of science that there are some things that seem to have been designed. If you would like examples let me know.

Hm, i didnt mean to sound like its all about the biology, but yeah some animals can be homosexual. I think though we shouldn't be compared to them mainly cuz of major differences (like thinking abstractly or the ability to have morals and such). This can be argued against anyway, so this is opinionated.

It just seems that people are asking for rights for everything. I mean I have to admit that I think I'm in love with this dog I have. Would it be ok if I can jump his bones? Can I have the right?
I suppose morality ties into this position and that can be all relative and subjective, and so nothing definitive in the form of a solution may come out of this issue for a long while. All in all, its pretty much pointless discussing this age old issue in hopes of convincing the opposing side to change especially when it's over the internet.

At least theres no inconsiderate bashing from each side (at least i hope i didnt come off that way.)

Btw, I originally wasnt planning on taking a postion in this but merely wanted to respond to someones question of why conservatives don't like this idea. I might as well play devil's advocate and continue.

[grimStar]

It just seems that people are asking for rights for everything. I mean I have to admit that I think I'm in love with this dog I have. Would it be ok if I can jump his bones? Can I have the right?
I suppose morality ties into this position and that can be all relative and subjective, and so nothing definitive in the form of a solution may come out of this issue for a long while. All in all, its pretty much pointless discussing this age old issue in hopes of convincing the opposing side to change especially when it's over the internet.

No there is a BIG difference being in love with a dog that has not ability to consent, because like you said. They don't think abstractly. Nothing wrong I feel if two people consent. The only thin slope I see with banning gay marriage is that if you say morally that two consenting adults are allowed to marry, then the same can be said with polygamy. But polygamy is most of the time having one dominating man, who demeans there wives and makes them lesser of himself.

But to place a law forbidden for good means they are scared that in the distant future people's opinion will shift.

But you re right, gay marriage is like abortion. No matter how good your facts are, no one opinion's will really change. Let people be happy I say, it's not like allowing gay marriage is going to destroy the already weak meaning of marriage anyway.

[Killfile]

I'd love a list of things that "have" to be designed -- I'm a strong supporter of evolution. Intelligent Design feels like a pretty lame cop-out to me.

I don't think that people are asking for rights for everything. I think that it is both historically and biologically incorrect to assume that homosexuality is either recent or unnatural in humans. I think that similar denials of rights have occurred based on skin color, religion, and language in the past - and that discrimination based on sexual orientation is little more than a 21st century form of Jim Crowe.

First we said it was wrong for people of different faiths to marry.
Then we said it was wrong for freed slaves to marry slaves
Then we said it was wrong for people of different skin colors to marry
Then we said it was wrong for people to marry if they happened to be of the same gender.

While we're at it - let’s make them ride at the back of the bus. Maybe separate water fountains. Discrimination is discrimination -- just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make them any less of a human being.

Oh - and drop the bullshit dog argument - the dog can't consent. We're talking about two consenting adults here. It's not what one person wants to do -- it's two people.

[vtwahoo]

If the heterosexual couple can't have kids, there's always adoption. Also, whats to stop the heterosexual couple from marrying anyway.

But why should ANY couple be compelled to have children? If the argument against homosexual marriage is that they cannot have children why ISN'T it an argument against heterosexual marriage between individuals who either cannot or have decided that they will not produce offspring.

If the state can prohibit homosexual marraige on the basis of procreation they can do the same thing for heterosexual couples.

Do you support that proposition? If so, please explain why you approve of a state-sanctioned policy against childless unions. If not, please provide a different explanation for banning homosexual marraige.

The only thin slope I see with banning gay marriage is that if you say morally that two consenting adults are allowed to marry, then the same can be said with polygamy. But polygamy is most of the time having one dominating man, who demeans there wives and makes them lesser of himself.

I don't see why one would necessarily lead to the other or why you couldn't simply draw the line at homosexual marriage but then I don't have a problem with polygamy either...provided, of course, that polyandry is also legal.

To be clear, polygamy is marriage among one man and multiple women. I disagree STRONLY with the assertion that it is usually a male-dominated and anti-woman institution. Historically and contemporarily speaking, polygamy is used in societies in need of high fertility rates. Because the women bear the children and children are the desired outcome of the union, women are extremely economically and socially important in these cultures.

Polyandry is marriage among one woman and multiple men. It's less common historically but has been an institution in Tibet for thousands of years. Becuase Tibet lacks available farmland brothers would actually share the same wife in order to keep the family lands entact. "When Brothers Share a Wife" describes this institution.

I dislike the perception that polyandry and polygamy are anti-woman...especially considering how anti-woman plain, old heterosexual marriage has been in some societies at some points in history.

[grimStar]

But you just can't draw the line with gay marriege. If you see that it is morally acceptable to allow gay couples (or two consenting adults to marry), how then can you say that it is morally wrong for multiple consenting adults. The only difference is the number.

To be clear, polygamy is marriage among one man and multiple women. I disagree STRONLY with the assertion that it is usually a male-dominated and anti-woman institution. Historically and contemporarily speaking, polygamy is used in societies in need of high fertility rates. Because the women bear the children and children are the desired outcome of the union, women are extremely economically and socially important in these cultures.

hmm..if they are so important, they why are they treated like shit in muslim cultures? They barely have any voice, especially in some of the uber-conservative muslim cultures, where polygamy is allowed. Though I do agree with you on the historical reasons for polygamy. But this is a far different world we live in than the past. And now marriage in muslim countries isnt entirely to have children either. They may be important, but they are not treated equally. Though polygamy is not the reason.

And I've read many stories of many wives of polygamy, where they had to marry in there teens. How can a teenager really consent to marry a man? Like was the case with the Tom Green guy. As they grow they grow so accustomed to the lifestyle they really can choose an alternative. It's like being fed a religion all your life, you become brainwashed and it's too late.

[Killfile]

Ok - first off, the diminished role of women in many highly conservative Muslim cultures doesn't mean that polygamous marriage causes that. Black people were treated like crap in the United States from until about 1970 -- does that mean that capitalism as an institution is racist?

Polygamy doesn't mean that you have to marry early either. Early marriage is an option, but one that is not compulsory without other totally unrelated pressures (such as arranged marriage – one in which parents are generally concerned with the long term welfare of their progeny).

Running with that ball - try to remember that "Teenager*" is a construction of American Culture that did not exist before the 1940s. Many of the soldiers who went off to fight the Nazis did so with 14 and 13 year old wives left behind back in the states. Was that anti-woman?

Even older cultures considered the teenage years to be the time when a boy became a man and a girl a woman. The Romans married at 13, the Spartans sent boys off to war at 13, and ancient Japanese and Chinese cultures took similar steps to marry off or separate children from families at this age.

Teenagers are independent and rebellious for a reason - they have strong biological pressures to leave the nest and try their wings. As a culture we prevent this for reasons that we have deemed good for the overall preservation of wealth and property in our society.

* That’s teenager as in the “sweet sixteen” sense of the idea, not simply being between 13 and 19. Obviously everyone who lives to 20 has had teenage years, but the idea that those years are a limbo between childhood and adulthood is one that originates in American twentieth century culture.