Topic: Creative [cough] Anti-Gay Marriage stance

[Vincegamer]

An interesting point from a legal perspective:

The law about inheritance allows the establishment of certain criteria in estate planning, such as "to all natural children then living...."
This is considered an open class so long as the mother is alive (and up to a few months after the father dies in some states) because she could always have more children. (Being an open class has certain legal ramifications that don't matter here)
But wait, you may say, what if she's barren or post-menopausal?
Well if you think she can't have children then you must think the Bible is a lie, since Sarah had children into her dotage, after menopause.
I'm serious. That's part of the reason such consideration has gotten into our laws.
So, when the guy in the video says "A woman without a uterus has no more potential for giving birth than a man without a vagina" he is saying the Bible is a lie.
So our laws have built into them the possibility of a miracle, and thus there IS a difference, if you believe in miracles.

The odd thing is, it puts limits on God.  God can miraculously have a woman regrow her uterus and get pregnant after having been barren, but cannot make a man get pregnant. (Silly Yahweh, not nearly as creative is the Greek gods)

[AxeGrrl]

An interesting point from a legal perspective:

The law about inheritance allows the establishment of certain criteria in estate planning, such as "to all natural children then living...."
This is considered an open class so long as the mother is alive (and up to a few months after the father dies in some states) because she could always have more children. (Being an open class has certain legal ramifications that don't matter here)
But wait, you may say, what if she's barren or post-menopausal?
Well if you think she can't have children then you must think the Bible is a lie, since Sarah had children into her dotage, after menopause.
I'm serious. That's part of the reason such consideration has gotten into our laws.
So, when the guy in the video says "A woman without a uterus has no more potential for giving birth than a man without a vagina" he is saying the Bible is a lie.
So our laws have built into them the possibility of a miracle, and thus there IS a difference, if you believe in miracles.

The odd thing is, it puts limits on God.  God can miraculously have a woman regrow her uterus and get pregnant after having been barren, but cannot make a man get pregnant. (Silly Yahweh, not nearly as creative is the Greek gods)

Very interesting stuff there, Vince!

And yeah, some miracles just seem to be 'out of reach' for God

[Desert Fox]

He posted some stuff that makes himself look pretty bigoted. . .

The vast majority of same sex couples aren't John Barrowman, most of them do in fact want a "marriage", marriage is not something that is imposed on them but a status that they are campaigning for.

Well, yes. Should they campaign for it? That is the issue under discussion. 'Some people want it' is an unhelpful truism.

    And while reproduction is certainly one of the central points of marriage, an equally salient point is simply building a life with someone, we don't deny marriage to barren heterosexual couples do we?

To a degree contemporary Western marriage may have been separated from the ideal of fruitfulness, just as it has been separated from the ideal of sexual pleasure (as I mentioned in the post I linked earlier). I acknowledge this as potentially problematic.

Consider a lesbian couple with a child from a sperm donor, is that not a family?

I suspect that there are severe ethical issues with that situation from the get-go.

    It is unclear to me, do you mean all couple based romantic relationships, all romantic relationships or even any stable unit of people with deep interpersonal links?

I don't see how it makes any difference in this context.

Also, found out that Carrie Underwood was slammed by the Christian Right for being pro Gay Marriage

[AxeGrrl]

Carrie earned my respect for her public statement about the issue (when she really didn't have to make it) apparently, her and her husband (Mike Fisher, a great guy) attend a 'gay friendly' church in Nashville.

[Shibboleth]

Mike Fisher

Sean Avery is a strong supporter of gay rights and he likes himself a good purse.

[Desert Fox]

I was thinking about something tied to this discussion

Recently, I rewatched "The Mormon Proposition"

It should be obvious that most of the commercials supporting Prop 8 were non-factual
What I am wondering is if the producing know this deception or is is cognitive dissonance and they actually believe what they created? 

[AxeGrrl]

Mike Fisher

Sean Avery is a strong supporter of gay rights and he likes himself a good purse.

Indeed!  If someone asked me 2 years ago if I'd end up kind of admiring Sean Avery and being annoyed by Tim Thomas, I never would have believed them

[AxeGrrl]

I was thinking about something tied to this discussion

Recently, I rewatched "The Mormon Proposition"

It should be obvious that most of the commercials supporting Prop 8 were non-factual
What I am wondering is if the producing know this deception or is is cognitive dissonance and they actually believe what they created?

That's always the conundrum ~ are they just grossly (and wilfully?) ignorant, or is it a case of 'lying for Jesus'?

Unfortunately, the fallout from their actions is the same regardless of the answer.