Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Undead Molten Llama
#26 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 7:47 PM
Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
Frankenbabies! It's not enough that people who do IVF select the sex of their babies, now we're going to genetically engineer them.


Yup! We're gonna make perfect babies THROUGH SCIENCE! We'll be able to choose their sex, their gender preference, their hair/eye/skin color, the shape of their nose and ears and faces, their intelligence level, and whether or not they'll be prone to getting fat. We'll be able to fix any weird congenital abnormalities, AND make it so that their poop doesn't smell. For a price, of course.

Seriously, is that what you fear? Because that's almost like a phobia in the "irrational fear" sense of the word. Besides which, frankly, I don't understand why children always enter into practically every discussion of gay marriage. Gay people can adopt (although it's difficult) even in many places where gay marriage is illegal; it's just that such adoptions are considered single-person adoptions. And, actually, allowing gay couples to marry would provide a legal precedent for adopted children of gay couples who separate. Right now, things get thorny with that, only BECAUSE the parents can't marry.

And, just like hetero couples, not all gay couples actually want children, anyway. And for those that don't...Well, lucky them because there's no chance of an "oops" baby that might end up aborted, is there?

Quote:
Parents on the birth certificate are and should be the biological parents of the baby.


No. See below.

Quote:
The reason men have got away with recognising children that aren't theirs is because nobody will bother to do a test as long as they assume the responsibility of raising that child, and should there be a paternity dispute biological parents usually win.


Not anymore. There've been recent cases (as in, recent enough that I remember them) that women hired as surrogates have tried to have their biological children -- toward whom they had exactly ZERO part in raising them -- taken away from the people who adopted the children. The biological mothers did not win their cases.

Biological parents are just that: People who contribute their genes to an offspring. I gave up my firstborn to adoption because he was a child conceived in rape when I was 17, born when I was 18, and there was no way I could support him at the time. I was only barely supporting myself. So, he has my genes, yes. He looks something like me, although his biological father was black, and those genes tend to trump my wimpy WASPy ones. But I consider the people who raised him to be his parents, not me. That my son and I have a relationship now is great and that his two kids consider me their grandmother along with the woman who raised my son (and she's OK with that) is great, too. But I know who my son's parents REALLY are, and it isn't me, except in the biological sense. Which, if it's not coupled with the real work of actually RAISING the child, means absolutely NOTHING.

Quote:
But two men or two women, how do they give birth to a child? Maybe they should call it a parental certificate.


I realize this was probably sarcastic, but it's not necessary because a birth certificate's purpose is to establish a child's citizenship in a given country, NOT his/her parentage. It's a way for the government to track its population, usually for taxation purposes. They don't give a hoot about who a child's parents are, really and truly. They just want an idea of how much tax money they can expect to receive in a given year, once all the kids registered as being born in a given year and who don't die in the interim turn 18. That's what it boils down to. That's what death certificates are for, too.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Advertisement
Theorist
#27 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 8:39 PM
Birth certificates in the US can say almost anything about your parents, since it's really not important at all who they are except for figuring out which person to send you home with in the hospital and absolutely irrelevant unless you're overseas as far as the important bits on the paper are concerned. What the birth certificate is for is for establishing you were born in the US, or to a US parent, and you've got some sort of paper trail establishing that back to someplace with similar records. If you were born in Iowa and that paper said that Mickey Mouse and Daffy Fuck were your parents then it wouldn't be an issue. You'd still be born in Iowa so you could still get your Social Security Card, the primary thing you need your certificate for unless you're black and daring to run for President.

OTOH, if you were born in space whose kid you were would suddenly become important, because you'd need a parent to establish your citizenship then - assuming it was David Bowie and Buck Rogers wouldn't matter being two dudes except that they're British and American EXCEPT under DOMA which actually breaks these well established rules for exceptions of recognition based on location (which is why it's probably going to be struck down.)

Birth certificates could be entirely blank except for the bits establishing where the kid fell out of the sky for the most part inside of the US. It's not about parentage, it's about citizenship.
Instructor
#28 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 8:45 PM Last edited by GabyBee : 2nd Apr 2013 at 12:38 AM.
Even building on what Mistermook said...

U.S. birth certificates aren't even standardized. Even further, not all birth certificates even say who the parents are. Out of curiosity I pulled out my birth certificate, which happens to be just a card like a driver's license or whatever (I was born in Galicia, an autonomous region of Spain, so the standards are probably a bit off-mark anyway). Neither of my parents are listed on it, the record for my birth was filed 9 days after I was born, and the date of issue was TWO MONTHS after I was born. So yeah... birth certificates are kind of meaningless. Their main purpose is for internal hospital records, and applying for a passport.

As for the larger issue of LGBT parents adopting children... didn't we already cover that in the other thread?



(Screw you MTS April Fool's! I'm keeping this one!)
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#29 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 10:17 PM
"Mickey Mouse and Daffy Fuck"?

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Scholar
#30 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 11:04 PM
Quote: Originally posted by whiterider
"Mickey Mouse and Daffy Fuck"?


You're right, it should have been "Hickey House and Daffy Fuck"

Just call me Blake! :)
Hola, hablo español también - Hi, I speak Spanish too.
Theorist
#31 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 11:17 PM
Quote: Originally posted by whiterider
"Mickey Mouse and Daffy Fuck"?

I decided to leave the typo in because it amused me and was consistent with my views and the point I was making.

Serendipity and all that.
Field Researcher
#32 Old 1st Apr 2013 at 11:20 PM
They shouldn't call it gay marriage, the could call it marriage, though in order to be recognized as a legal issue they should say "marriage between the same sex and/or gender."
Alchemist
#33 Old 2nd Apr 2013 at 12:13 AM
I don't understand why this is even up for debate.

Evil doesn't worry about not being good. - The Warden, Dragon Age Origins
Instructor
#34 Old 2nd Apr 2013 at 12:36 AM
One thing I really don't understand in this debate is that Republicans and right wing evangelicals are always blathering on about "less government" and all that, but yet with this issue they seem to be totally fine with DC turning into big brother making sure everybody is being good little Christian boys and girls in the bedroom.

Plus... if they call it something other than marriage, then they'd have to make a separate "gay certificate". Which would in turn mean that the government would need a "Department of Internal Gaydar". Which in turn would necessitate a cabinet level position, such as a "Secretary of the Fabulous", or maybe even "Rear Brigadier of Rainbows". Wait... this is starting to sound awesome.
Undead Molten Llama
#35 Old 2nd Apr 2013 at 12:50 AM
Quote: Originally posted by jthm_nny
They shouldn't call it gay marriage, the could call it marriage, though in order to be recognized as a legal issue they should say "marriage between the same sex and/or gender."


Why should even that distinction be made? IMO, the "definition of marriage" is something like "a civil contract between two human beings which defines the parameters of merging households." In other words, I'm not particularly concerned about the individuals' genitals or lack thereof. If you qualify as a human being, you're good to go to be married, if you want to be. (So no, no marrying inanimate objects or pets or human beings who can't yet legally enter into a contract. Because the argument always goes, "Well, if we let gays marry, then people who want to marry their dog will clamor for their right to do so." Right. Can we say "grasping at straws?" I think we can...)

So, I really, truly don't understand why society has to make this so danged complicated and/or why religion of any stripe feels a need to stick its nosy, meddling nose into it in some religious people's endless quest to dictate the "morality" of people who don't believe in their religion. (And I say that as a Christian, mind you. )

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Inventor
Original Poster
#36 Old 2nd Apr 2013 at 5:25 AM
Quote: Originally posted by DigitalSympathies
What, OP? I don't get the question. It's . . . you don't call it straight marriage, do you?


I am NOT the one (as my OP clearly says) who said gays should not be able to call it marriage. It was someone else. When I asked the person what it should be called, she said call it a civil union or whatever, just don't call it marriage. I told her I thought it should be legal and called marriage.
Mad Poster
#37 Old 2nd Apr 2013 at 9:07 AM
Quote: Originally posted by leo06girl
I am NOT the one (as my OP clearly says) who said gays should not be able to call it marriage. It was someone else. When I asked the person what it should be called, she said call it a civil union or whatever, just don't call it marriage. I told her I thought it should be legal and called marriage.


You should stop talking to her if she refuses any further attempts at educating herself.

I don't understand how this is a debate either. Your friend is just being ignorant. Civil unions and marriage are different and have different meanings. Civil union sounds cold and is more about sharing benefits. Marriage is about love and support.


Angie/DS | Baby Sterling - 24/2/2014
This account is mostly used by my sons to download CC now, if you see me active, it's probably just them!
Inventor
Original Poster
#38 Old 2nd Apr 2013 at 10:16 AM
Quote: Originally posted by DigitalSympathies

I don't understand how this is a debate either. Your friend is just being ignorant. Civil unions and marriage are different and have different meanings. Civil union sounds cold and is more about sharing benefits. Marriage is about love and support.


Yes, she was being very ignorant. I actually brought that up, she replied it's the same thing.


TBH, I wasn't sure if this should be in the debate or discussion board. I just wanted to know that others thought. If this is the wrong board, and it's really that big of a deal, I'm sure a mod can move it to what everyone thinks is the proper board for it.
Top Secret Researcher
#39 Old 2nd Apr 2013 at 3:34 PM
Quote: Originally posted by leo06girl
Yes, she was being very ignorant. I actually brought that up, she replied it's the same thing.


Ask her this: if it's the exact same thing, then why not make all marriage civil unions?

(I do know people who think that all marriages should be civil unions, but this person doesn't sound like one)
Undead Molten Llama
#40 Old 2nd Apr 2013 at 3:59 PM
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
(I do know people who think that all marriages should be civil unions, but this person doesn't sound like one)


All marriages ARE "civil unions" in the legal sense, at least in the US. They ARE all the same. It's why during even the most religious ceremonies, the person doing the marrying says, "By the power invested in me by the State of _____." Because it's the state that makes the marriage valid, not a say-so from Pastor Elmer or even from God. And State = Civil.

It's just that some folks are under the impression that marriage is somehow religious, in the sense that it's the religion and/or the religious ceremony that validates it. It's not. Not in any way, shape, or form. At least, not in the legal sense. The religious ceremony is not what makes your union legal in the eyes of the law. The state does. The state is secular. The religious stuff is valid and meaningful only amongst people who share your religion, whatever that religion may be.

Like I said, it's simple. People make it unnecessarily complicated. If you don't want your church to perform same-sex marriages, that's dandy. Piss and moan and call gay people immoral all you want; I really don't give a fig. But your church, ANY religion or religious organization, cannot dictate what the state sees as valid. And you should be HAPPY about that, if you're a religious person. Because that ALSO means that the government can't go off and suddenly declare that you are a criminal for practicing your religion. And it ain't like that everywhere.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Theorist
#41 Old 2nd Apr 2013 at 7:05 PM
When gay people get married, it should be called "marriage" just like it is for straight people.

When people claim they are fine with gay people being able to join in a "civil union" and they only object to the use of the word "marriage" to describe it, that strikes me as being utterly childish and completely selfish. It sounds like something you might hear a bratty child say on the playground, "it's OUR word and you can't have it! Nanny nanny naa naa!"

Separate but equal didn't work when it came to segregation, and it shouldn't work here.

Resident wet blanket.
Instructor
#42 Old 2nd Apr 2013 at 7:43 PM
The problem with "separate but equal" is that it never actually ends up being equal, because the people who have the power to make it equal are the ones who imposed that racist policy to begin with, and therefore will ensure that their facilities and rights are protected first, and the [insert oppressed group here] peoples' facilities rights are protected later, if at all.
Inventor
Original Poster
#43 Old 2nd Apr 2013 at 9:03 PM
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Ask her this: if it's the exact same thing, then why not make all marriage civil unions?

(I do know people who think that all marriages should be civil unions, but this person doesn't sound like one)


I didn't even think of asking that.
Scholar
#44 Old 2nd Apr 2013 at 9:09 PM
Yes it should.
Scholar
#45 Old 2nd Apr 2013 at 9:21 PM
Quote: Originally posted by iCad
It's why during even the most religious ceremonies, the person doing the marrying says, "By the power invested in me by the State of _____." Because it's the state that makes the marriage valid, not a say-so from Pastor Elmer or even from God. And State = Civil.

The interesting part is that if you are married in Ohio, technically no other state is required to recognize that marriage. They usually do so because of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution:
Quote:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

However:
Quote:
...the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events.
Which is why states without same-sex marriages are allowed to ignore the marital status of gays and lesbians married in another state.

Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupid.
Undead Molten Llama
#46 Old 3rd Apr 2013 at 7:02 PM
Quote: Originally posted by kattenijin
The interesting part is that if you are married in Ohio, technically no other state is required to recognize that marriage. They usually do so because of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution:

[b]...Which is why states without same-sex marriages are allowed to ignore the marital status of gays and lesbians married in another state.


HOPEFULLY, if gay marriage is recognized on a Federal level, then the states will follow through on FF&C, as they do with heterosexual marriage. Somehow, I just have this feeling that certain states -- and I'm sure you know who they are -- won't. But I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Instructor
#47 Old 3rd Apr 2013 at 7:47 PM
Even above the Full Faith and Credit clause, I think all states should recognize same-sex marriages already. With the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, military chaplains are now permitted to perform same-sex marriages on military bases. I was just reading about one that was performed a few days ago in the chapel of the United States Air Force Academy. Since the U.S. military is a federal institution, and marriages performed on military bases are on federal property -- not state property -- they should be recognized by EVERY state, regardless of local laws.

The way I see it... marriage equality has already come to the United States. What we're seeing now is just the death throes of bigoted homophobes, which is coincidentally happening at the same time as the bureaucracy ties up all the loose ends. Supreme Court will strike down DOMA, and then it will just be a matter of time before each state passes marriage equality laws. Only thing left to do is to bet on which state will be the last one to pass it. My money's on Mississippi.
Undead Molten Llama
#48 Old 3rd Apr 2013 at 8:10 PM
Quote: Originally posted by GabyBee
Even above the Full Faith and Credit clause, I think all states should recognize same-sex marriages already...


Absolutely they should, but the question is...Will they?

The US Constitution is written such that the individual states have more power and more say than the Federal government. It had to be written that way or else the fiercely independent ex-colonies would never have ratified it. Just like when the Declaration of Independence was being drafted, when compromises had to be made about slavery or else all 13 colonies would never have signed off on it at all and there might not be a USA, for better or worse. (It's funny that the "swing vote," at that time, was Georgia, of all places.) Anyway, all that, of course, came to a head in the Civil War, so it took 100 years for things to come to a head, but come to head they did.

I have a feeling there will be similar conflict should the Federal gov't adopt same sex marriage. The states can still say, "Screw that!" Just like Colorado, my home "purple" state, said "Screw that!" to criminalized marijuana and made it legal for recreational use as well as medical use.. The military can't say "Screw that!" because that's a Federal institution, not a state one. ) And many states are not going to like Federal same-sex marriage approval, and they CAN say "Hell, no!" if they want to. They can ban it in their own state and/or they can refuse to recognize such marriages performed in other states.

So, not saying that WILL happen, but I fear that it might. And I'm pretty sure which states will cause the ruckus, should a ruckus come to pass.

ETA: My vote for the last state to wake up would be Texas, if only because Texas has to zig when everyone else zags. But yeah, the "Bible belt" will be the hold-outs and the ones most likely to raise a fuss, indeed. There and, possibly, Utah.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Bunned
#49 Old 14th Apr 2013 at 11:54 PM
Of course it should be called marriage! Love is love. It's complicated, often painful, but can also give somebody the best happiness they could ever want. Why we would want to deprive people who are legitimately in-love of marriage is beyond me. Honestly, if marriage would give couples of the same gender happiness, I think we should let them marry. Imagine not being able to marry the person who you love most in the world, just because it clashes with some people's beliefs. If gay people want to get married, then who are we to say they can't!?

Here's my nifty blog- Stories Drive Us
The power of imagination makes us infinite. ~ John Muir
Test Subject
#50 Old 18th Apr 2013 at 8:08 AM
Marriage is marriage. I think the only reason it generally isn't called marriage is because (especially here in the states), religion is very prominent here and people will always use the excuse that apparently God doesn't like homosexuals (which is turn contributes to why I am Agnostic). We let religion dictate certain laws here it seems.

A friend and I were just talking about this the other week actually. He thought that anywhere, if two (or more if polygamy is your thing) people are in a relationship and are in a legal partnership, it should not be called a marriage until the partnership lasts a certain length of time. This attributes to ALL couple, be it gay or straight. I am not positive, but I believe he told me that this method is actually practiced in certain parts of the world. I believe one of the Canadian provinces was one of them.

As a gay man, I would like to think however that by the time I am ready to get married, that I will be able to do so right away and not have the government tell me I can't based on who I am in love with.
 
Page 2 of 8
Back to top