Of gay "marriage," virginity, and JSM's creepy fixation

[Guest]

Do you believe that post-menopausal women should be allowed to marry...

Of course I do. The complementarity of men and women extends well beyond their ability to reproduce.

...cocklick?

Another one of your creepy homoerotic fantasies involving me, I see. Does your cover, er, I mean your girlfriend, know?

If you do, then your "biologically significant differences" argument is transparently insincere, because they can't complement a man's reproductive efforts any more than another man could.

See my previous comment. Men and women complement each other whether or not they reproduce with each other.

Q.E.D.

Do not use words you do not understand.

The intellectual continuity between you and the Brigham Youngs of the 19th century is clear. The anti-miscegenation bigots interpreted certain sections of the Bible as prohibiting interracial marriage and, for that reason, favored banning the practice in civil government.

There is not one section of the Bible that prohibits "whites" marrying "people of color."

You interpret certain sections of the Bible as prohibiting same-sex marriage and, for that reason, favor banning the practice in civil government. There's not much of a distinction between the two positions.

While it is true that the Bible prohibits gay "marriage," I do not make recourse to the Bible in arguing against government recognition of gay "marriage."

The most salient points here are that the definition of marriage has expanded from its earlier limitations as a purely religious institution; that even if it had not, it's not proper for the government to prefer one interpretation of Scripture over another without a good public policy rationale; and that such a rationale has not been demonstrated. Everything else is gold plates and peepstones.

See above.

[_moksha]

By way of contrast, the distinction between men and women is biologically significant;

Good reason to begin an all out assault against those "so unlike men creatures".

their generative organs are complementary and each provides an integral part of the human zygote (among other biological differences).

However, this part sort of queers the deal as far as an all out assault goes.

.

[_harmony]

Perhaps you are just too easy a target, CC. Dial back the homophobia a bit and the target on your back will shrink.

Harmony, Darlin....
I have so much respect for you now, how high you scored on Justin Tames Scale on trustworthy side.
Praise the Lord, such Men exists to show us the way!

Don't blame me. I'm not in charge.

[_Some Schmo]

Hmmm... looks like daddy didn't think much of you either.

[_ludwigm]

The intellectual continuity between you and the Brigham Youngs of the 19th century is clear. The anti-miscegenation bigots interpreted certain sections of the Bible as prohibiting interracial marriage and, for that reason, favored banning the practice in civil government.

There is not one section of the Bible that prohibits "whites" marrying "people of color."

Then please tell me/us, where the hell did come the church's nigger problem from?

[the Lord] has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood etc.

Who (when, where, why) has declared that "not every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood" ?
Was it a doctrine? Can one find it in the Standard Works?

[_John Larsen]

Your facile dismissal is noted but, like JSM's political "science" degree, it amounts to nothing. You have to actually, you know, demonstrate the alleged intellectual discontinuities.

Weird. I thought he had a "political" science degree.

[_The Dude]

There is no intellectual continuity between us, moron. Racial distinctions are artificial from a biological point of view. Men and women of different "races" do not produce sterile offspring or any of the other problems associated with the offspring of distinct species. By way of contrast, the distinction between men and women is biologically significant; their generative organs are complementary and each provides an integral part of the human zygote (among other biological differences).

There is no intellectual continuity in the above paragraph, from one set of words to the next. It is gruel of illogic.

Your facile dismissal is noted but, like JSM's political "science" degree, it amounts to nothing. You have to actually, you know, demonstrate the alleged intellectual discontinuities.

Fine.

You seem to be saying biological differences and similarities can be a basis for deciding what types of marriages to allow. Therefore, different races aren't really that different so we should allow them to marry, but by way of contrast sex differences are a big deal so we should ... allow them? On wait, the differences between sexes are made for each other (penis -vagina; sperm - egg), and that's why we should allow interracial marriage. Someone goes on to ask about allowing sterile people to get married, which is an obvious question. I could ask why not allow polygamy, since one man makes lots of sperm than one woman can use. It makes a lot of biological sense -- you should be all for it. Maybe we should only allow polygamy.

But after all, what is marriage? It's not a reproduction contract intended to reflect biological "facts" (at least I hope that's not what you think).


What you have are some facile truths leading to blind alleys instead of an argument to justify interractial marriage (and sterile marriage) but not gay marriage (or polygamy). The problem is that the debate isn't about biology and cannot be justified on the premise that biology tells us how we should make laws.

[_EAllusion]

There are real biological differences between people who have spinal cord injury and those that do not. Yet it does not follow that we ought to allow only those without spinal cord injury to marry. That's because the difference isn't relevant. On the opposite side of the coin, the notion of "consent" like "race" is locked up in socio-cultural context and cannot easily be reduced into biological states (at least at this time). Yet we don't allow 11 year olds to legally marry because we do not think they can meaningfully consent. That's because consent is relevant. The point here is that whether a distinction is biological or not has no bearing on the matter.

The comparison between gay marriage and interracial marriage flows from the fact that 1) Virtually every single argument used against gay marriage also logically applies to interracial marriage and was used against it and 2) both are handy examples of immoral marriage bans primarily rooted in prejudice.

Obviously, the specific procreation argument/rationalization only applies to gays. Happily, it can be addressed on its own awful terms.

[_Calculus Crusader]

There are real biological differences between people who have spinal cord injury and those that do not. Yet it does not follow that we ought to allow only those without spinal cord injury to marry. That's because the difference isn't relevant.

That's correct; it isn't relevant. The spinal cord injury is incidental (or accidental). The complementarity of the sexes is essential.

On the opposite side of the coin, the notion of "consent" like "race" is locked up in socio-cultural context and cannot easily be reduced into biological states (at least at this time). Yet we don't allow 11 year olds to legally marry because we do not think they can meaningfully consent. That's because consent is relevant. The point here is that whether a distinction is biological or not has no bearing on the matter.

Says you. It certainly bears on the matter, although it is not the sole consideration.

The comparison between gay marriage and interracial marriage flows from the fact that 1) Virtually every single argument used against gay marriage also logically applies to interracial marriage and was used against it and 2) both are handy examples of immoral marriage bans primarily rooted in prejudice.

This assertion is stupid when you make it, too. Besides which, even if it were true that the "same arguments" are being used (which is manifestly not the case), it is fallacious to assert that the arguments must, ipso facto, be erroneous.

Obviously, the specific procreation argument/rationalization only applies to gays. Happily, it can be addressed on its own awful terms.

Then perhaps you should address it instead of engaging in pseudo argumentation.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Do you believe that post-menopausal women should be allowed to marry...

Of course I do. The complementarity of men and women extends well beyond their ability to reproduce.

Such as?

(Prepare to LOL, everyone.)

Does your cover, er, I mean your girlfriend, know?

My girlfriend is well aware that you are a cocklick, yes.

There is not one section of the Bible that prohibits "whites" marrying "people of color."

Respected theologians believed for years that the verse warning against inter-tribal marriages meant this precise thing.

While it is true that the Bible prohibits gay "marriage," I do not make recourse to the Bible in arguing against government recognition of gay "marriage."

Where does the Bible prohibit gay marriage? There are many faithful Christians who take a different view of the Bible than you do.

I don't think anyone's buying your "I don't make recourse to the Bible" hogwash, either. It's quite obviously the most important motivating factor in your lobbying, just as it was for racists 100 years ago.