Previous 31 - 40 Next
In response to:

Answering Ted Olson

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 11:30 AM
The argument isn't that all marriages must produce children, It is that the gender-inclusive union is the only kind that naturally can, and most do. The state simply does not have the same interest in an union that excludes one of the sexes. Our birth certificates note whether we are male or female, and they are government documents. Therefore, no invasion of privacy is needed under the bride+groom requirement. However, if you want to ask intention to have children or fertility, you are invading privacy.
In response to:

Answering Ted Olson

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 11:27 AM
If two men can "marry", then "marriage", as a public policy, can't be about children. It is solely about the feelings of the two adults. If that is going to be our public policy, we should drop default paternity designations for a husband of a woman giving birth. We should also never, ever pressure a man to marry a woman he knocked up, nor stay married and work out problems for the sake of raising children. Business partners should sue for the benefits of marriage (immigration, immunity from testifying against each other in court, etc.) After all, marriage is no longer a conjugal relationship, and we MUST treat all pairs the same, right?
Never compare same-sex "marriage" to incestuous or polygamous marriages. It's insulting, because the latter two forms of marriage have actually been historically recognized as actual marriages, unlike brideless or goomless unions. ;-)
Although I'm a conservative Christian, my main arguments against judicial imposition of the neutering of state licenses are based on biological facts, separation of powers, and freedom of association. 1) Men and women are different. Even most of the people who try to deny this demonstrate that they understand this to be true. After all, if men and women were not different, all, or at least three, of the terms in "LGBT" would have no meaning. 2) The pairing of a man and a woman is different than the pairing of two men or two women. It is the only kind of pairing that is able to naturally produce new citizens (who, unlike the adults, do not consent to the relationship), even if not all do. This alone is enough to give the state more interest in the pairing of a man and a woman. 3) Men and women are different in personal relationships. If that difference matters enough to someone in picking a lover, how can it not matter when it comes to the parent-child relationship? 4) State licensing of bride+groom pairings provides children with a role model, guardian, and bonding partner from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society, legally bound to each other as well as the children; generally, this is good for children. 5) It is constitutional, moral, common, and necessary to treat different kinds of relationships differently. One need not believe homosexual behavior, relationships, or people to be harmful, sinful, or inferior to accept any or all of #1-5.
Ugh. Let's try that again: The problem is, we've long ago decriminalized fornication and then have done just about everything to defend the freedom of people to fornicate without consequences or moral judgment, and so we're supposed to support "consenting adults", both men and women equally, in their freedom to engage in CASUAL sex. And so people do it. And then we have to come up with things like sexual harassment laws and NOW this "affirmative consent" law that, let's be real, will be used overwhelmingly against men. We do NOT need more women engaging in casual sex and then later, when they realize he enjoyed it more than she did and he's just FINE moving on to another woman while she has a harder time feeling good about the situation - claiming it really wasn't consensual.
The problem is, we've long ago decriminalized fornication and then have done just about everything to defend the freedom of people to fornicate without consequences or moral judgment, and so we're supposed to support "consenting adults", both men and women equally, in their freedom to engage in consensual sex. And so people do it. And then we have to come up with things like sexual harassment laws and how this "affirmative consent" law that, let's be real, will be used overwhelmingly against men. We do NOT need more women engaging in casual sex and then later, when they realize he enjoyed it more than she did and he's just find moving on to another woman while she has a harder time feeling good about the situation - claiming it really wasn't consensual.
In response to:

The Lord and the Courts

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Oct 07, 2014 12:44 PM
Public policy applies to all. Marriage laws apply to all. You are naive if you think WHAT has been one (declaring there's no difference between bride+groom unions and other kinds of pairings) and HOW it has been done (fascistic tactics, judicial overreach, bad new precedents, elected and appointed leaders abandoning their oaths and obligations) will not have a larger effect, some of it negative, of it things YOU don't like.
In response to:

The Lord and the Courts

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Oct 07, 2014 12:40 PM
That it takes one man and one woman to naturally create new human beings is apparently, to so many people, just a minor fact of reality that has little meaning on anything. Got that? Creating new human beings, new citizens, is not an important matter. There's no difference between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual coitus. Gender diversity is SO EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE... except marriage. Go figure. SCOTUS rules on DOMA and says states trump federal government on marriage. They do NOT find a "right" to a state marriage license without a bride or without a groom. Subsequently, a bunch of LOWER federal courts decided it IS the place of federal government to determine the legal description of marriage, usurping the power of the state. And SCOTUS doesn't intervene. Want to go into law? Forget logic, reason, precedent, order. Just play on emotions until you have the most whiny and vicious advocacy group. THAT is what really matter.
In response to:

The Truth Test

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Oct 02, 2014 11:20 AM
A boy wanting to play with dolls does not mean the boy is really a girl. It means he's a boy who likes to play with dolls (for now). No boy knows what it feels like to be a girl, and vice-versa. A boy not feel comfortable being himself (for now), but it doesn't make him a girl.
In response to:

The Truth Test

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Oct 02, 2014 11:18 AM
I remember a few years ago when a sports writer for the Pink Lady (my name for the Los Angeles Times) announced he was "transgender" and would now go by a female name. California law forces us all to pretend to be supportive of this kind of thing, but the Pink Lady went the extra mile for... "Christine" I think he was now called. Anyway, they gave him a platform to write about being transgender and made it clear they were cheering him on. I don't know how far he went with it, meaning I don't recall if he had surgery or hormone injections or what. Anyway, one day, he simply reverted back to stop pretending to being a woman. That must have been awkward enough for the Pink Lady. But it got even worse: he soon killed himself. How tragic. Here was a man who was fully "supported" in his claim to be transgender. They "supported" him right into killing himself, because, you know, NOT cheering on his self-destruction would have been "hate".
In response to:

Marriage Still Matters

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Oct 01, 2014 11:36 AM
Unless there are significant changes in marriage & family law, and our culture, more and more men are going to avoid marrying and avoid becoming fathers. More & more men are going to join the "marriage strike". They would rather be chaste and go through life "alone" than take on what they see as the risks, harms, restrictions, and burdens of marriage. No small part of why these people have gone on a marriage strike has to do with the family laws and courts: unilateral no-fault divorce; community property laws combined with the fact that most men do/will earn the majority, if not all of the income during the marriage financially punishes men for marrying; alimony requirements (lifetime, in some places!); child custody and support issues; presumed paternity and paternity fraud; domestic violence response by law enforcement being at the point where a man can get physically assaulted by his wife and be the one to go to jail and permanently kicked out of his own home while still required to pay for it. Strictly speaking LEGALLY, if a husband earns more than his wife, as most husbands do, the only benefit a man gets from marrying is, in most places, default paternity status over his children. This, of course, is assuming he wanted children in the first place. However, how many men have been unjustly denied access to their children by the mother moving away or orchestrating false abuse allegations? Meanwhile, a woman gets certain financial benefits/guarantees for being a wife, via the force of law. A man who has no moral qualms about unmarried sex can now get literally everything he wants from women, a never ending variety of women at that, without ever marrying, and not suffering socially or professionally.
Previous 31 - 40 Next