The 53%-47% loss for gay marriage in Maine is a beginning, not an end. We have been down this road many times, with gay-equality advocates losing the first (or first few) rounds in popular referenda on lots of issues other than marriage. In fact, gay-rights measures historically have not fared well in popular votes. In Maine in the 1980s, the state legislature passed a state anti-discrimination law, only to have it rejected by voters. It passed the law again, and voters rejected it again. It passed the law a third time, and voters approved it. After that, it was never repealed. A similar pattern might be reproduced with gay marriage in that state. A narrow loss can be made a narrow win. It’s coming.
There will be the usual post-mortems about the campaign in Maine. My sense from a thousand miles away is that “No on 1″ did a pretty good job of raising money, running an ad campaign, and operating a get-out-the-vote field effort. (Disclosure: I contributed to No on 1.)
Some will say that we should have included broader protection for religious liberty in the legislature’s SSM bill. But I don’t get the sense that the supposed erosion of religious liberty was the main Maine issue or that broader protection would have made an electoral difference. The battle also wasn’t about procreation or slippery slopes, which never featured in ads. And it wasn’t about the possibility that SSM might send a “message” that family structure doesn’t matter. People don’t really buy the notion that granting legal protection to existing families could send that message, any more than allowing second marriages or step-parent adoptions sends a message that it’s unimportant to have married biological parents raise their own offspring.
Instead, the central concern seems to have been what will be taught in public schools to children being raised by heterosexual parents. In one sense, it’s an odd focus for a debate about SSM. Once again, as in California, but with even less justification, SSM opponents falsely but effectively claimed that allowing gay couples to wed would mean “teaching” gay marriage in public schools when in fact kids will be taught about the existence of gay marriages in any event.
In another sense the obsessive focus on what’s being taught to kids is understandable because of its long historical pedigree. The not-so-subtle subtext of the debate over public schools, which has poisoned every public policy debate involving homosexuals, from decriminalizing sodomy to passing antidiscrimination laws, is that the gays are coming to get your kids. Exactly what “coming to get your kids” means will vary from person to person, but it’s not something parents want to chance.
It’s hard to counter that message without admitting a core truth: that allowing gay marriage will mean kids will think somewhat better of homosexuals. That’s a benefit of SSM, though not the most important one. SSM advocates haven’t quite figured out how to say that softening anti-gay attitudes will make us better citizens without making kids into little Liberaces.
Maine was disappointing, though the bigger loss for SSM may have been the defeat of a pro-SSM governor in New Jersey, where the campaign had nothing to do with SSM and the governor ran under the slogan, “my opponent is a fatso.” The New Jersey legislature may yet enact an SSM bill in the lame-duck session, but that’s far from certain.
Something is turning in this debate, though. With close popular votes in two states in the last year, little prospect of additional anti-SSM state constitutional amendments, coming legislative action in more states and D.C., the first-ever electoral victory for civil unions in an election last night in Washington state, gay marriage completely secure in four of five states that still have it, and a federal marriage amendment in rigor mortis, the question is not really whether, but when and where next.
PeteP says:
The fact is, ‘gay marriage’ has been enacted ONLY by legislators and judges, NEVER by the people. And it has consistently been shot down, over and over again, by THE PEOPLE.
The fact is, ‘gay marriage’ is NOT repeat NOT ‘marriage’ in the true sense of the word, as ‘marriage’ denotes a union between a man and a woman.
‘Gay rights’ advocates had better get used to the fact that their lifestyle will NEVER be accepted as ‘normal’ by the vast majority or people, and they should just be glad that they are allowed to practice it, as they are now, instead of trying to cram it down everyone’s throats as ‘normal’ or ‘equal’.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:29 pmRandy says:
The answer to ‘where next’ is right here in Washington, DC. The District Council will approve of SSM by a wide majority, and the mayor said he will sign it. We should have it up and running within months.
But the larger point is well taken. Kalamazoo, MI, decisively voted in favor of keeping the anti-discrimination laws in place, despite a last minute odious ad that stated “Your government made this legal” and showed a young girl entering a public restroom, followed by a shady looking man. Message: It’s not legal for men to molest young children in public bathrooms. It’s hard to win against such lies and underhanded tactics, but we did nonetheless.
I think one major point, and its seems many are with me on this, we can no longer count on just the Dems to support us. In fact, Obama did nothing at all to help, and the party did nothing at all either. we need to reach out to both parties. Many republicans are actually pretty gay friendly with rights.
The other good news is that the people have spoken in Kalamazoo and Washington: rights for gays are not ‘special rights’ at all, but a measure of equality.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:33 pmRandy says:
Pete: “The fact is, ‘gay marriage’ is NOT repeat NOT ‘marriage’ in the true sense of the word, as ‘marriage’ denotes a union between a man and a woman.”
As opposed to Britney Spear’s 12 hour marriage, which of course was marriage in the true sense, right? Or Newt’s third marriage?
But thank you for your post, Pete. It gives us a reality check that there are still plenty of people like you out there hating gays for whatever reason.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:36 pmannonymous says:
I think there are people who disapprove of the rampant divorce rate and lack of commitment to the family as a whole. Those same people probably see homosexual marriage as a threat to the traditional family. However, they may support divorce over gay marriage (and thus “buy the notion” that “SSM might send a ‘message’ that the family doesn’t really matter”) because of the need for a divorce mechanism in society. Divorce is a tool to prevent one spouse from subordinating the other or failing to live up to the commitments that marriage demands. Thus, in their eyes, gay marriage has no positive utility and indicates that the family does not matter while divorce may indicate the family doesn’t matter in some circumstances, but can be used to protect the family from a domineering member.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:36 pmTheBadness says:
‘Gay rights’ advocates had better get used to the fact that their lifestyle will NEVER be accepted as ‘normal’ by the vast majority or people, and they should just be glad that they are allowed to practice it, as they are now, instead of trying to cram it down everyone’s throats as ‘normal’ or ‘equal’.
... And, being people, some voters are just jerks.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:38 pmannonymous says:
Your argument doesn’t get at the core of the original post. You are saying because marriage is not done properly in some cases, than the traditional meaning of marriage is not relevant in a discussion on whether or not SSM should be legal. There is a jump in your logic that I am missing.
Believe it or not, there are plenty of people who are not homophobic or blatantly hateful of gays that still oppose gay marriage.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:41 pmgulc09 says:
hopefully it’ll be soon...and hopefully it’ll survive.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:42 pmAndrew Berman says:
Dale, you’re looking at this entirely wrong.
The question is: where does an informed electorate want to be on this issue? And the answer is clear– give homosexuals as much as possible without threatening critical concepts of family.
As far as your ‘core truth,’ the fact is that many people in Maine who voted against same sex marriage already think well of homosexuality. Until those on your side of this issue can truly internalize that fact, you will repeatedly be surprised and disappointed by the results of your poor choices.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:43 pmtroll_dc2 says:
This sentence raises the question whether, if the writer had his druthers, he would not “allow[]” homosexuals to “practice” their “lifestyle.”
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:44 pmyankee says:
Opponents of gay rights seem to be obsessed with this particular metaphor.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:47 pmmamiejane says:
Lest we forget, traditional marriage means a man’s right to beat his wife and sell his daughters to the highest bidder. Sometimes, it means a man’s right to take multiple wives. It means no checking account or credit in the name of married women. It means discrimination in favor of men, who need jobs because they have families to support. There is no such thing as traditional marriage.
Moreover, gay marriage will win because it provides stability and consistency for third parties engaged in transactions with gay couples. Forget the fake morality, gay marriage will win because it benefits business.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:50 pmRustyShackleford says:
Last I checked, this is a free country, and nobody has to ask anyone else’s permission (even that of the “majority”) to live their lives as they see fit.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:50 pmPeteP says:
Randy — you’re predictably quick to play the ‘hate’ card. Next you’ll play the ‘phobia’ card, I’m sure.
The fact is I do not hate gays, nor am I scared of them. I do believe, in fact, that what two consenting adults chosoe to do with each other is none of my business, as long as they don’t do it in front of me.
However, as I stated before, ‘marriage’ denotes a union between a man and a woman ( one of each ). This has historically been the meaning of the word. You need to go find some other word for your preferred relationship, if it does not fit that definition. And do not expect it to be accorded the extra rights and priviledges by society and the law as have been accorded to marriage.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:50 pmSteve P says:
Actually, a union between two people of the same gender is usually considered a definition for “marriage”, at least by all the main dictionaries.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:00 pmyankee says:
This is not accurate as to polygamy. Historically our culture has opposed polygamy, but people don’t say that e.g. a polygamous marriage entered into in Saudi Arabia isn’t a marriage at all. Nor do they describe the polygamous marriages of the Old Testament as non-marriages.
Nor does the argument by definition make any sense. Language changes; “doctor” once referred only to people with the equivalent of a PhD, but now it refers to people who have attended medical school. “Faggot” once meant “bundle of sticks,” but now it’s just an extremely vile anti-gay slur. “Marriage” once meant “one man and some number of women,” but not anymore.
The last sentence does not follow. Why does unequal nomenclature entail unequal rights?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:02 pmRandy says:
Anonymous: “You are saying because marriage is not done properly in some cases, than the traditional meaning of marriage is not relevant in a discussion on whether or not SSM should be legal. ”
Sort of. Opponents of SSM often bring up ‘traditional marriage’, as Pete does, and claims that gays aren’t a part of it. The fact, however, is that marriage as a definition has in fact changed over the decades and centuries. Marriage as practiced in the middle ages is far far different from today, as an extreme measure, and I don’t see anyone advocating a return to those days. If marriage can survive all those changes, why can’t it survive adding SSM? In fact, quite a few countries have SSM, including Spain, S Africa, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and more, and quite a few states now have it. Mass has had it for several years. At some point, even opponents will have to agree that marriage defacto and de jure includes SSM, at least in some jurisdictions, to no ill effect.
Pete: ” do believe, in fact, that what two consenting adults chosoe to do with each other is none of my business, as long as they don’t do it in front of me.”
No, that’s quite different from what you said above. You earlier stated that I am lucky that I am allowed to ‘practice my lifestyle’ (whatever THAT means). And you said that the people will never accept me as ‘normal’ Therefore, in your view, I am abnormal, and not in a good way. Please explain how that evinces love and affection for gay people.
” And do not expect it to be accorded the extra rights and priviledges by society and the law as have been accorded to marriage.”
I don’t. In fact, every marriage ballot has asked for the exact same rights that you have, nothing more or less.
“You need to go find some other word for your preferred relationship, if it does not fit that definition.” Indeed, now in Washington, they just approved a law that allows gays all the exact same benefits as marriage without the word marriage. I take it then that you fully approve of that, and had you been a citizen of that state, would vote in favor? Afterall, ‘the people’ have spoken on that issue. And you certainly don’t care how I live my abnormal lifestyle....
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:03 pmRandy says:
Pete: “‘Gay rights’ advocates had better get used to the fact that their lifestyle will NEVER be accepted as ‘normal’ by the vast majority or people’
Interestingly, about 70% of the people in America approve of getting rid of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in the military and allowing gays to serve openly.
About an equal percentage of the people in America approve of ENDA, which is the federal legislation that would prohibit discrimination against gays in employment and housing.
About a third of the people overall approve of SSM, and another third approve of an ‘all but marriage’ type granting of benefits. (That number has been consistently rising over the past 15 years).
So, according to every poll I’ve ever seen, ‘the people actually DO accept my lifestyle as normal, or at least allows us to co-exist in the great country of ours.
Now, as to WHY Pete thinks I am abnormal, I have no idea, but I’m sure he’ll clue us in shortly.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:08 pmTheBadness says:
However, as I stated before, ‘marriage’ denotes a union between a man and a woman ( one of each ). This has historically been the meaning of the word. You need to go find some other word for your preferred relationship, if it does not fit that definition. And do not expect it to be accorded the extra rights and priviledges by society and the law as have been accorded to marriage.
So, where that leaves us is, “you can’t get married or even have some sort of back-of-the-bus version of the privileges, benefits and responsibilities of marriage. Because you’re different.”
Lovely.
And, frankly, I don’t think gay marriage will ever be a priority for the straight masses: it shouldn’t ever have been in the first place. Whether other people can get married has zero concrete effect on most peoples’ lives, unless they have a specific hang-up about it so serious as to get agitated at the very thought.
To the extent the primary hang-up is religiously motivated (and, frankly, let’s stop pretending that’s not the case), it represents nothing so much as a failure of the educational system to teach people the difference between civil and religious institutions in a meaningful way.
Which is, to me, even more depressing than the prospect of having to bow yet again to the tyranny of the majority.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:09 pmSarcastro says:
I am really unhappy at the physics community’s use of “canonical ensemble.” As I have noted before, ‘canonical’ denotes body of laws and regulations made by or adopted by ecclesiastical authority. This has historically been the meaning of the word. You need to find some other word for your preferred distribution of particles, if it does not fit that definition. And do not expect to be accorded any fundamental usefulness as have been accorded canon.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:09 pmuh_clem says:
53–47 is fairly close. A decade ago, it wouldn’t have been anywhere near this close. Two decades ago having it on the ballot at all would have been unthinkable. Four decades ago, the proponents would have been thrown in jail.
There’s a massive inexorable demographic pressure towards single sex marriage . It’s not a majority yet but it will be shortly, actuarial tables being what they are.
See http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/06/future_trends_f_1.html
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:10 pmzuch says:
PeteP:
Compare and contrast:
As for this:
You misspelled “same” (not to mention “privileges”). No charge.
Or did you truly mean that some people ought to be afforded “extra” rights?
Cheers,
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:12 pmjdub says:
Randy:
If that is what the proposed DC law says, I would be in favor of it. In fact, I’d prefer the gov’t get out of the marriage business completely. As a religious person, I would not recognize a “marriage” of two people of the same sex, but I’m all for gays having equal civil rights. Call everything a “civil union” (for gays and straights) and let churches and synagogues perform “marriages.”
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:12 pmTamerlane says:
A quick observation that I don’t wish to build on at this time: If both sides were honest — those supporting homosexual marriage tend to be more honest on this issue than opponents — they would admit that they view the political struggles over homosexual marriage as an overt, but proxy, battle in the wider and more covertly fought war over whether society in the USA is going to move beyond the current tolerance of homosexual behavior and on to acceptance/embracing homosexual behavior. Most proponents of homosexual marriage tend to assume that winning this battle is one step closer towards winning the war for acceptance and most opponents tend to assume that losing the battle is a major strategic defeat. I don’t think either side is right and both the hope and despair are misplaced.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:19 pmGainesvilleGuest says:
I agree that many same-sex marriage supporters misunderstand the mindset of their opponents. Many opponents of same sex marriage don’t fear gay people or have anything against them. I am against same-sex marriage. I think it has pros and cons, but I think the cons outweigh the pros. One of those cons is precisely what Prof. Carpenter points out. Recognizing same-sex marriage would cause children to look at homosexuality more favorably. As a person who’s religion mandates that homosexuality is immoral, this is a con to me. While I don’t care that others are gay, I do care about this negative (in my view) consequence of bestowing marriage upon their relationships. This consequence is equally applicable to civil unions, which I also oppose.
The public rejecting gay marriage does not mean “fear” or “lies” have triumphed. Plenty of people are fully informed on the matter and decide gay marriage is not a good idea.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:20 pmSteve says:
Some gay-marriage opponents seem awfully insistent that Dale look at a collection of 53–47 referenda and conclude that gay marriage will just never, ever, ever be accepted. Good luck with that one.
I think we all know what the laws will look like a generation down the road. Some people just want to delay it as long as possible.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:25 pmBlue says:
“The not-so-subtle subtext of the debate over public schools....”
It’s because the public schools have been used as a wedge for a large number of left-leaning social change agenda over the years (e.g., environmentalism). People are getting tired of it.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:26 pmBrian K says:
The nature of the advertisements ran against SSM prove this statement to be a load a BS. if most people thought well of gays then no one would use ads portraying gays as pedophiles out to get your children. etc...
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:27 pmj says:
delete me
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:28 pmRichard Johnston says:
We may soon find out.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:32 pmTamerlane says:
One other quick point: Several persons posting here have argued demographic destiny: Because older persons are more likely to oppose homosexual marriage than younger persons it is therefore necessarily the case that as older persons die the proportion of the population supporting homosexual marriage will increase. Opinion polls on abortion provide an example of how dangerous it is to assume the necessity of this mechanism. For nearly a half century now the proportion of older women opposing abortion at any given time has remained essentially constant and much higher than the proportion of younger women or men who oppose abortion. In other words, as women age they become more opposed to abortion. There is no reason to suspect that a similar mechanism (aging leading to more conservative opinions) may not apply in the current instance.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:32 pmMartinned says:
Children, please rise, put your hand on your heart, and recite the pledge of allegiance...
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:35 pmSonicfrog says:
So every gay couple that decides to get married... is going to seek you out and have the ceremony done in you front yard?
I still don’t get the anti SSM argument. What exactly would be the harm to society if gays are allowed to marry? Would changing the definition of marriage destroy all other marriages? What real demonstrable damage would it actually do to society if we allowed two people of the same sex, who are in love and have started a life together, and want to build this partnership for the rest of their lives? What would the specific damage be to society, and to you, personally?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:37 pmThe Watcher says:
The problem is that slightly over one half the voters know where this is going.
Every gay leader from the head of the Triangle Foundation to Obama’s Education czar is not just gay, but pro-child sex gay.
Michigan convicted two gays of screwing in a Mejier’s bathroom in front of little kids. Triangle Foundation went full tilt to get the conviction overturned. Same story with sex in the rest rooms at kid’s baseball parks.
Obama’s czar, while working in a school, had a 15 year old come in and ask for advice about having sex with an older man. The czar told him to have lots of fun. When the story broke, Obama and the gay community defended by saying the czar was wrong, the child was 16, so it was more than cool for him to be told to enjoy gay sex with an older man.
A lot of folks agree with Dale, that this is not an end but a beginning. More than 50% don’t like that road ahead and are putting a brakes on now.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:38 pmMartinned says:
I love how Merriam Webster dodges this one:
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:38 pmBlue says:
And that, Martin, is exactly the type of indoctrination that schools should be doing at a young age–love of country, patriotism, stressing the values of honor and freedom. Instead they serve as a breeding ground for Gramsci acolytes tearing down the country. That’s the reason Ayers went into education, for example.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:39 pmSonicfrog says:
RJ, thanks for the link. That made my day!
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:41 pmMartinned says:
So indoctrination you like is good, and indoctrination you don’t like is bad?
(The reason why I used the pledge of allegiance as an example is that the mere though of it gives me 15 flavours of outrage, and I don’t even have kids. The mere idea of making public school children do sugh a thing makes me a whole lot more understanding of the case for home schooling. Forget the fact that the pledge mentions god, that is de minimis, but the kind of rampant and overt nationalism that it tries to pump into young children is a disgrace. The state has no claim to our allegiance, it has to earn it.)
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:44 pmzuch says:
Blue:
It’s because the public schools have been used as a wedge for a large number of left-leaning social change agenda over the years (e.g., environmentalism). People are getting tired of it.
Don’t forget evolution.
Cheers,
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:44 pmMartinned says:
Hey Sarcastro, the parody doesn’t work if you don’t use your normal handle. On-line, people can’t tell you’re not being serious.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:46 pmmikeyes says:
Could you show us the proof for that statement(especially about environmentalism — I’ll give you school desegregation assuming you think that is a bad thing)?
It seems a little hard to believe that the public schools as a whole, especially in Texas and Kansas, have been used to promulgate a liberal social change agenda since every school district is locally controlled by an elected board. That would mean that there is a massive conspiracy of tens of thousands of school boards (and voters) that has gone un-noticed until now.
Who knew?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:48 pmPeteP says:
Randy — “Pete: ” do believe, in fact, that what two consenting adults chosoe to do with each other is none of my business, as long as they don’t do it in front of me.”
No, that’s quite different from what you said above. You earlier stated that I am lucky that I am allowed to ‘practice my lifestyle’ (whatever THAT means). And you said that the people will never accept me as ‘normal’ Therefore, in your view, I am abnormal, and not in a good way. Please explain how that evinces love and affection for gay people. ”
Excuse me ? When did I lay claim to any ‘love and affection’ for gay people ?
As to ‘lucky to be allowed to practice it’ — there are many things that I disapprove of, that at the same time I think should be legal ( prostitution, for example ). ‘Should be legal’ ‘Should be granted special rights and priviledges’.
“” And do not expect it to be accorded the extra rights and priviledges by society and the law as have been accorded to marriage.”
I don’t. In fact, every marriage ballot has asked for the exact same rights that you have, nothing more or less. ”
Liar. You again lie in the very language you choose ‘marriage amendment’, instead of ‘GAY marriage amendment’. It is NOT equal, no matter how hard you to try to redefine, twist, or misuse the lexicon. By the same token, liberals referring to illegal aliens as ‘undocumented workers’ or ‘immigrants’ does not change the fact that they are ILLEGAL aliens. Neither linguistic trick, yours nor theirs, is availing. Marriage DOES in fact have many special rights and privileges attached to it by law, and that is what you want gays to have, the same special treatment. If there weren’t value in it, you wouldn’t be concerned about the word. It’s not the word you want, it’s the privileges that go with it.
As to Washington DC — I would have voted AGAINST anything that grants favored legal status ( including one making their relationships equal to marriage, regardless of word games ) to homosexuals based on that choice. Again, you attempt to equate ‘legal private business’ status with ‘granted special protections and status under the law’.
And, speaking of that den in inequity ( and iniquity, of course ), DC is about to pass a law ( Council passed it yesterday, if I recall, and mayor will sign it ) legalizing ‘gay marriage’ — and so the saga goes on and on. Only 5 states have legal gay marriage right now, and 100 % of them have not allowed the people to vote on it. In 31 states where people HAVE been allowed to vote on it, instead of being controlled by their legislatures and judges telling them what to do ), it has ben voted DOWN, including yesterday in Main.
As to your suppsoed ‘points’ in your later post, such things as ‘prohibiting discrimination’ etc should nor be confused with APPROVING of your abnormality, nor of granting it SPECIAL rights ( as opposed to common daily rights of all citizens ).
By the same token, before you ask, I utterly oppose ‘hate crimes’ legislation, including that recently passed by Congress that is going to have rueful unintended consequences such as allowing cross-dressing teachers in public schools, etc. There should be no such thing as a ‘hate crime enhancement’ that makes certain classes ‘priviledged groups’ based on the supposed thoughts in someone else’s mind. For example — if someone is assaulted, the criminal should be ( hopefully ) arrested and convicted and sentenced regardless of whether his victim was gay or not, or whether he likes gays or not. As it stands right now, you are afforded more protections than I am under law, based on your sxual proclivites. If someone assaults you becuase he doesn’t liek gays, that’s somehow suppsoed to be worse than if he assaults me because he doesn’t like white guy, or bald guys, whatever. This is totally utterly wrong.
To another poster who played the ‘religious hangup’ card — bzzzt, try again. Life long atheist here. BTW, I also think prostitution is disgusting, and I also think it should be legal. ( hint — never been to one in my life, never will, legal or not — it’s disgusting to me ). And no, I’m not celibate, in case you were going to ask. Merely that I find something to be disgusting is no cause for me to say it should be ILLEGAL. They are very different questions.
To another poster — “There’s a massive inexorable demographic pressure towards single sex marriage .” No, actually there’s not, except in the minds of it’s advocates.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:49 pmzuch says:
The Watcher:
“You lie!”
“You lie!”
“You lie!”
Cheers,
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:50 pmRandy says:
Gainesville Guest: “Recognizing same-sex marriage would cause children to look at homosexuality more favorably. As a person who’s religion mandates that homosexuality is immoral, this is a con to me. While I don’t care that others are gay, I do care about this negative (in my view) consequence of bestowing marriage upon their relationships. This consequence is equally applicable to civil unions, which I also oppose.
The public rejecting gay marriage does not mean “fear” or “lies” have triumphed. Plenty of people are fully informed on the matter and decide gay marriage is not a good idea.”
Please reread what you just wrote. You say that you don’t ‘fear’ gays, yet you clearly state that you are afraid that your children will ‘look more favorably’ upon homosexuality.
What you are really saying is that you are afraid that if gays get married, they will be accepted as normal. One can apply that to every law — if gays are protected from discrimination, then that ‘normalizes’ us too.
And what exactly are you afraid of if your children to look more favorably upon gays? Do you really think that your child, who is presumably straight, will finding out that gays can get married, decide that he will become gay? If so, your fears are totally unfounded. Why? Because first of all, your children have already heard about gays and probably know someone who is gay already. But more importantly, sexual orientation isn’t chosen. You can talk all you want about morality, but there isn’t anything moral about sexual orientation, just as lefthandness isn’t an issue of morality.
But the proof is in the pudding. As I never tire of pointing out, several states now have SSM, and many european countries do too, also Canada. Please point out where your fears have proven valid in any of these countries — if you can show that they children are growing up more gay, I’d like to see that. But they don’t. The effects upon those jurisdictions is that nothing has happened.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:50 pmKen Arromdee says:
The pledge was created by a socialist. So it’s a really bad example–it’s actually another attempt to put left-wing dogma in the schools, just one that happened to backfire spectacularly.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:54 pmrichard says:
‘Gay rights’ advocates had better get used to the fact that their lifestyle will NEVER be accepted as ‘normal’ by the vast majority or people, and they should just be glad that they are allowed to practice it, as they are now, instead of trying to cram it down everyone’s throats as ‘normal’ or ‘equal’.
How about this, PeteP. I’ll make you a bet. I’ll give you ten to one odds– your $1000 against my $1000– that gay marriage will be approved in a state wide vote within ten years. If you are so sure of your “NEVER” pronouncement, you’ll jump at the bet.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:58 pmRandy says:
Pete: ” As it stands right now, you are afforded more protections than I am under law, based on your sxual proclivites. If someone assaults you becuase he doesn’t liek gays, that’s somehow suppsoed to be worse than if he assaults me because he doesn’t like white guy, or bald guys, whatever. This is totally utterly wrong.”
I agree, if that were true. But it isnt’. The fact is that hate crimes laws encompass not only sexual orientation, but also race, religion, and a whole other list of factors. So, under current law, for example, if a black man assualts you because he hates whites, then he gets hieghtened sanctions applied against him. Or, if a group of gay men assuault you because of your sexual orientation, then they get the heightened sanction. So you see, if you actually took time to read the law, you would realize that you are covered too. In other words, you too have special rights.
“Liar. You again lie in the very language you choose ‘marriage amendment’, instead of ‘GAY marriage amendment’.”
Then prove me a liar. Show me one ballot measure anywhere were gays were allowed more rights than straights. Indeed, you delight in affirming that gay marriage ISN“T equal to straight marriage. So by your own admission, we gays don’t get as many rights as you do, even in marriage ballot amendments.
“I would have voted AGAINST anything that grants favored legal status ( including one making their relationships equal to marriage, regardless of word games ) to homosexuals based on that choice. Again, you attempt to equate ‘legal private business’ status with ‘granted special protections and status under the law’.”
AGain, please show me what specific rights gays in Washington now have that straight people don’t.
’ I also think prostitution is disgusting, and I also think it should be legal. ( hint — never been to one in my life, never will, legal or not — it’s disgusting to me ).”
I think that statement speaks more about you than you think it does.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:01 pmSteve P says:
Randy — I don’t believe GainsvilleGuest’s point was that, when homosexuality is more accepted, it will make children more gay (or even more children gay). I think he meant that, when homosexuality is more accepted, it’s less often viewed as morally wrong. Since his religion views homosexuality as morally wrong, that creates a dichotomy that he’d like to avoid explaining to his children.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:03 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Dale, as a Mainer who voted for repeal, I think you’re missing a point: I don’t care much either way about gay marriage but I do care when government redefines a word’s common meaning against the public’s understanding of it. Words, in the form of constitutions and statutes, are the only control the public has of government: when government seizes control of the meaning of a word, it subverts popular sovereignty.
As far as I’m concerned, Maine could pass a law tomorrow making a blanket change in all laws pertaining to marriage, replacing the word “marriage” with, say, “uniting,” and make ‘uniting’ available to all comers, including gays. Those who wanted to call it ‘marriage’ still could, but each couple would be defining ‘marriage’ for themselves and not forcing their definition on others via the state.
Silly as it sounds, that purely formalistic change would probably make gay ‘marriage’ tolerable to a majority of Mainers, who are a pretty laid-back lot as a general thing. Eventually a new meaning for ‘marriage’, that included gay couples, would probably emerge by consensus, as word changes naturally do.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:04 pmPatrick216 says:
The gays won the culture war in 1973 when the APA removed homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses and treated it as “normal.” All of these fights over gay rights are just “clean up” battles. The only real core long-term threat is the emergence of any scientific research that contradicts the conclusion that homosexuality is a congenital and un-alterable condition. A few psychologists at Princeton had done work, for example, suggesting that homosexuality could be treated. They were successfully marginalized and that research was stopped. As long as homosexuals stay on the ball, they should be fine.
As far as gay marriage is concerned, the way to win gay marriage is to change the public perception of homosexuality. To do that, gay people should rethink their leaders and the intellectual underpinnings of their movement. Their movement grew out of, and to a large extent is still led by, 1960s countercultural revolutionaries. Many folks behind that movement saw it as a great way to poke a stick in the eye of traditional Americans to insult or pervert the traditional American way of life. You see that to this day; most of the intellectual force behind the gay rights movement comes from so-called “sexual studies departments” at universities, which are simply recycled “women’s studies” departments that are staffed by radicals. Organizations like “NAMBLA” are taken seriously in many gay circles. Gay groups stand behind “gay pride” marches in places like New York and San Francisco that are absolutely obscene. So, when you ask the average person “when you think of gay marriage, what do you think of?” the answer is oftentimes something lewd and obscene because it’s colored by those perceptions.
The problem, of course, is that most homosexual folks I know don’t subscribe to that craziness and just want to lead a normal life. If they want the public to support them, they should take action to change their public image. Replacing their leadership is an important first step toward that goal.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:05 pmSkyler says:
Dale, you point out an apparent weakness of democracy.
In Austin the city council wanted to put in light rail. The people saw that light rail hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been installed, except for the pockets being lined and voted it out. So the city brought it up the next year. Again voted out by referendum.
So, what did the city do? They brought it to referendum again the next year. Voted out. And then again, still voted out. Then again and I was out of the country I think and suddenly we have light rail coming to Austin.
The people getting their pockets lined can afford to be patient. Free money is always worth waiting for. And now that they’ve won that vote one time it can never be voted on again.
The people of Maine have spoken but it won’t matter, you’re saying, because there’s always next year and the next and the next and the next. Eventually, just from sheer probability they’ll get the vote one time.
Kind of like medicare, social security. Once in place, no matter how unjust or unworkable, they’ll never go away.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:05 pmMartinned says:
For reasons that I don’t even fully comprehend, I often read Focus on Family’s media website PluggedInOnline. (Well, one reason is that their reviews explain what actually happens in a movie, including the ending, much more clearly than most other sites.) One of the things they do is count the number of swear words, and list the “sexual content” of the film. Oddly enough, the latter category doesn’t only include characters having sex, but also characters going to a gay bar.
What can I say, there are strange people in the world...
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:11 pmMartinned says:
Really? People’s opinions on SSM change randomly, subject to the laws of probability? That’s new.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:13 pmRandy says:
Steve: ” Since his religion views homosexuality as morally wrong, that creates a dichotomy that he’d like to avoid explaining to his children.”
perhaps. But his children will grow up at some point, and they will likely have a gay friend in high school, college, or the work place. In which case, they will have to make their own decisions about morality. And that will occur regardless of whether SSM is approved.
But even so, what is the point of saying that gays are immoral? There will still be gays out there, and often you have to deal with people in the real world that you may not like. You may not like muslims, or blacks, or jews, and find them ‘immoral’. Or even Democrats! If you want to teach your children that gays are immoral, it can only be for two reasons: So don’t become gay yourself, and make sure you avoid dealing with gays because they are immoral. The former isn’t an issue, since no one chooses to be gay, and the latter is impractical because you have to deal with lots of people in life.
And in fact, the world is filled with people like Gainesville who thought gays were immoral, then they found out that their sibling or child is in fact gay. They eventually realize that being gay isn’t an issue of morality, and come to love and accept all their family members.
Some don’t, of course, and just disown their kids. That’s very sad, and I’ve seen that happen too. But they create all that heartbreak it in the name of morality.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:14 pmso and so says:
I have a question (and judging by the libertarian leanings of this site, I hope to get an answer).
Would advocates of SSM be satisfied with a complete privatization of marriage (i.e., no ‘married filing jointly,’ similar legal benefits, etc.)?
This would seem to satisfy all the concerns about legal equality. No opposite-sex couple would be afforded any legal rights or privileges that would not also be available to any same-sex couple.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:18 pmyankee says:
They don’t, but who shows up to vote does.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:19 pmPatrick216 says:
Martinned–
People’s opinions do not change randomly, but the same people don’t show up every time on election day to vote. Voter turnout is dependent on a very large number of factors. Eventually, you might luck out and get a higher-than-expected turnout among supporters of light rail systems. Voila, the light rail referendum passes.
In my home state, we just passed a gambling proposition with 53% of the vote. Several gambling propositions failed in recent years. This time, however, the stars aligned–you got the right mixture of voters turning out in a low-turnout year, and you had a bad economy that made the economic arguments in favor of gambling more poignant for voters. Voila — the gambling referendum passes.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:19 pmMark Field says:
The evidence in this thread and in the political campaigns contradicts this, though it may depend on what you mean by “blatantly”.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:19 pmRandy says:
Patrick: “Organizations like “NAMBLA” are taken seriously in many gay circles.”
Actually, just the opposite. NAMBLA is never taken seriouly in any gay circles, and I should know — I go in those circles! It isn’t allowed to march in any gay pride parade, for instance. No, the only people I have ever seen take NAMBLA seriously are the anti-gay organizations who want to cement in people’s minds that gay = NAMBLA. I’m sorry that you were taken in by the bait.
“The only real core long-term threat is the emergence of any scientific research that contradicts the conclusion that homosexuality is a congenital and un-alterable condition. A few psychologists at Princeton had done work, for example, suggesting that homosexuality could be treated. They were successfully marginalized and that research was stopped. ”
Homosexuality isn’t ‘congenital’ because it isn’t a disease. It occurs in every population in every culture, and in most mammals as well. I haven’t heard about the Princeton study, so if you have information I’d like to see it. The truth is that every study ever done on human sexuality shows that it is set by the age of seven. It is probably set earlier, but it’s just darn difficult to find the orientation of toddlers.
Exodus is the leading ex-gay organization. Even they admit that changing from gay to straight almost never happens, and that the most you hope for is to become a celebate non-sexual person. Even that will remain a ‘lifelong’ struggle for most gays. All the leading poster boys for the ex-gay movement fell back into homosexuality, in fact. So no, there is no evidence that being gay is a disease, or that one can change sexual orientation. Even if you can, it’s a lifelong arduous process that has minimal chances of success. If you know any gay people who became straight, please tell their story.
I agree there is a public perception of gays. And like you, when gays come out to their friends, they realize they are just as normal as everyone else. The answer is for more of the closeted gays to come out and that will dispel any wrong notions than anything else.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:26 pmRandy says:
soandso: “Would advocates of SSM be satisfied with a complete privatization of marriage (i.e., no ‘married filing jointly,’ similar legal benefits, etc.)?
Sure. but it ain’t ever gonna happen. Many have suggested that the state get out of the marriage business altogether, and make everyone a civil union, and leave it to your church to decide ‘marriage.’ That’s a good solution, but it isn’t going to happen.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:28 pmYankev says:
This makes about as much sense to me as the Brittany Spears example. Apart from the fact that physical abuse appears in same sex relationships with about the same frequency as in marriages, and apart from the fact that men are physically abused by their wives in some marriages, it still does nothing to refute the notion that historically and culturally, marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You may feel that these relationships have been less than ideal. You may feel that other relationships deserve equal deference. But you have not refuted the proposition that these other relationships are something other than marriage, or that marriage is something other than the relationship between a man and a woman. Citing polygamy is not a refutation, but rather an example of a society that permits a man to be in more than one such relationship at a time.
So tell me, when did you stop beating your same sex partner?
Your prediction about economic stability is probably accurate. We stopped requiring justification for abortion when it became economically more profitable to permit them without restriction. We started allowing convicted murderers to walk the street when it became too expensive to execute them or to lock them up for life. We tolerate every form of trash on our airwaves because there is money to be made selling it or advertising it. Eventually economics trumps morality. That’s not a good thing in a self respecting society.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:30 pmTheBadness says:
By the same token, before you ask, I utterly oppose ‘hate crimes’ legislation, including that recently passed by Congress that is going to have rueful unintended consequences such as allowing cross-dressing teachers in public schools, etc
God forbid a well-qualified cross-dresser teach algebra; that would be the most horrible of horribles.
As it stands right now, you are afforded more protections than I am under law, based on your sxual proclivites. If someone assaults you becuase he doesn’t liek gays, that’s somehow suppsoed to be worse than if he assaults me because he doesn’t like white guy, or bald guys, whatever. This is totally utterly wrong.
Kindly do go and read the bill. If someone assaults you at least in part because they think you’re white or because they think you’re straight, that’s a hate crime. Proving the motivation might be more difficult (shouting “kill the whitey” during assaults seems rather uncommon), but the law most certainly does not create separate classes of super-privileged victims; it views some crimes as more serious.
As to your suppsoed ‘points’ in your later post, such things as ‘prohibiting discrimination’ etc should nor be confused with APPROVING of your abnormality, nor of granting it SPECIAL rights ( as opposed to common daily rights of all citizens ).
You keep coming back to this “special rights” line, and it never makes any more sense than it did the first time.
Marriage aside, gay people have the same rights, privileges and burdens as straight people; we are citizens, after all.
The law in most states currently extends a special subset of rights and privileges to straight people; we would like to benefit by those same rights and privileges. Your only substantive retort is that “we’ve always done it this way,” which frankly isn’t a terribly compelling case for maintaining a state of inequality.
Unless you’d rather we undermine the “traditional” meaning of marriage by entering sham “marriages.” Heck, we could be super-traditional and demand dowries from our putative spouses! I could use the extra cash, and I’m sure there’s at least one woman out there who could use a green card.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:31 pmMartinned says:
Fair enough, that’s why I am against referenda and in favour of representative democracy.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:33 pmStrict says:
“The people saw that light rail hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been installed”
Sorry for the off-topic, but what do you mean by it “hasn’t worked”? The trains don’t run? Ridership expectations are not met?
What about DART and Hiawatha? They seem to “work” quite well.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:34 pmlosantiville says:
the not-so-subtle subtext of the debate over public schools, which has poisoned every public policy debate involving homosexuals
Of course as a libertarian, Dale, you oppose the existence of government schools and isn’t this problem a good argument against same.
Aside from the moral case against slave schools (why should I be taxes to educate Bill Gate’s kids?), there is the eternal conflict of curriculum choices from how to teach reading to whether or not there should be a rifle team to whether teachers should attempt to build up the “religious faith” of half the students (Obama is God) while tearing down the religious faith of the other half (sodomy is a sin).
Those who seek to use compulsory education as a means of spreading commie propaganda are properly resisted with measures stronger than words.
Let parents pick and pay for their own educational choices and leave a debate over their need for income support for various needs to another day.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:36 pmso and so says:
I’ll do you one better and say that it’s the best solution. That leaves the question, why, if it is a good solution, are more advocates of SSM not pursuing it? Isn’t it a bit too easy to say “it isn’t going to happen” when it isn’t really being pushed for?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:36 pmSkyler says:
As for my “probability” remark, that was a poorly chosen word, but the intent I meant to convey is that people only have so much energy to fight and eventually they tire of constantly fighting the same battle over and over. In law we have res judicata to prevent exactly this same effect. Once the matter is decided, it should remain decided. At least for some reasonable number of years, say ten, or an emergency such as war or a hurricane.
A popular tactic of the homosexual lobby is to insist that anyone disagreeing with them is hateful. Or fearful. They don’t allow anyone to simply disagree.
I don’t hate homosexuals. They are none of my business and I don’t care what they do. But that doesn’t mean that I have to agree that homosexuality isn’t a bad set of behaviors. You have a natural right to be as perverted as you might wish, whether that is by choice or by some genetic error, but that doesn’t mean we have to subsidize it or welcome it into our homes.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:36 pmRandy says:
” Eventually economics trumps morality. That’s not a good thing in a self respecting society.”
Okay, you are right. Britney Spears and beating wives make no sense.
Yet, you say that ‘historically and culturally,’ marriage is between a man and a woman. Aside from the fact that that isn’t correct — polygamy is also historically and culturally the norm at least as much as monogamy — it still makes no sense to appeal to tradition as a reason to keep something. Slavery is also a tradition — should we keep it because it’s historically and culturally something that we have allowed, even promoted? There are lots of practices that are traditional that we have abandoned, some good, some not so good.
And, after a generation or so has passed in the jurisdictions that have approved of SSM, your argument of tradition and culture will support SSM, not cut against it.
So it makes as little sense as my Spears argument, or as much, depending upon your viewpoint.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:38 pmYankev says:
Yes and no. The polygamous marriages in the “old Testament”, as you call it, were still between one man and one woman. There was no legal relationship between the different wives; each wife had a legal relationship to the man and to her children with the man, but not with her rival wife or wives and their children.* In fact, the legal term for the co-wife is “tzarah”, often translated as rival, but which also means pain, trouble or injury (same root as the Yiddish word tzoros = problems).
* This is where anyone who has learned Tractate Yevamos will take issue with me, but the technicalities in Yevamos about one tzarah exempting the others merely proves my point; the bond that is dissolved is between the widows and their deceased husband, not between the widows and one another. To anyone who has NOT learned Tractate Yevamos, please ignore the foregoing disclaimer.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:39 pmSteve P says:
Randy, I think you’re doing a lot of mental calisthenics over what strikes me as a relatively simple point — GainesvilleGuests’s religion tells him that homosexuality is immoral, and he wants the society he lives in to reflect those moral values. While those values may result in subjectively weird/bad situations (self-hating gay teenagers, gays being closeted for fear of discrimination), they reflect his preferences.
I’d also like to point out that this commenter may believe that homosexuality is a choice, or he may have been referencing homosexual acts, which is often how people sidestep the “gay choice” thing. That is, allowing SSM legitimacizes homosexual sex, which he views as morally wrong. Does that make sense?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:39 pmFantasiaWHT says:
I always find this mind-boggling, along with the related psychologist spin that homosexuality somehow isn’t counted within the types of paraphilia (abnormal sexual arousal patterns).
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:45 pmKevin says:
Reading over these comments you’d think it was the 1950s and we were discussing interracial marriage. The fact of the matter is that same-sex marriage will be accepted (and legal) in the majority of U.S. States within 10 — 20 years. It’s just a matter of time before the much more tolerant youth of today replaces the rigid people in power. Source
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:46 pmCato The Elder says:
Terrible. What’s your basis for saying this? What does “abnormal” mean in this context, and even supposing that, why should you care about a behavior that doesn’t influence you?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:49 pmFantasiaWHT says:
Yankev — is “tzarah” related to “Sarah” the wife of Abraham?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:49 pmFantasiaWHT says:
@Cato the Elder: How can you think homosexuality is normal? The normal, most-common-by-a-huge-margin sexual arousal pattern is arousal by a member of the opposite sex.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:51 pmKevin says:
Reading over these comments you’d think it was the 1950s and we were discussing interracial marriage. The fact of the matter is that same-sex marriage will be accepted (and legal) in the majority of U.S. States within 10 — 20 years. It’s just a matter of time before the much more tolerant youth of today replaces the rigid people in power. Source
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:52 pmyankee says:
You are not helping your argument that you don’t hate gays and lesbians by calling them “perverted” and the result of “genetic error.”
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:53 pmCato The Elder says:
BTW with the callousness some here are displaying towards an issue that is very important to gays it is no wonder that liberals would attack the fount of such religious attitudes at their source. Every good turn deserves another, as they say.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:53 pmYankev says:
In the polygamous cultures that I am aware of, the only legal relationship was between the man and each wife, and there was no legal relationship between the wives with one another. Termination of her legal relationship with the man — by death or divorce — was the only relevant factor. There may be polygamous cultures in which this was not the case, but it is certainly true of both Islamic and pre-modern Jewish polygamy.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:58 pmTen Four says:
Interesting back and forth here.
I’m sort of 55/45 opposed to SSM. Its not one of my Top 10 public policy issues, and doesn’t carry much emotional resonance. Not a religious issue — I’m agnostic/atheist.
My libertarian leanings suggest a “do whatever you want” approach for adults. Not my cup of tea, so to speak, but that’s OK.
What gives me pause are three things.
First, the most vocal advocates don’t seem willing to settle for tolerance. They seem to want validation via public celebration. Heather Has Two Mommies (or Dads) writ large. Tolerance I grant and readily, but frankly the demand for celebration is a bit much. I’d like to be left alone and tolerated too.
Second, once past the “one man, one woman” rule, I find it hard to see where its possible to draw a line. Polygamy (which I think is quite bad for women), and even more inventive structures seem likely to result. There are advocates today, and given the current “flexible” legal environment, I think we end up with anything goes in the end. See One above.
Third, I’m become pragmatically and increasingly concerned over the last few years about the negative social effects of family breakdown. This creates some widespread, very expensive and difficult to counter social pathologies — single parent households, rising and high rates of out-of-wedlock births, educational failures, etc. Its hardest on the kids.
Its hard to believe that the active disparagement of the traditional family doesn’t contribute to this. The Left has contributed to this in many ways. The push for SSM doesn’t help.
The issue that matters most, from a public policy viewpoint, is to provide an environment to successfully raise kids. I think most people, and I am one, believe that a traditional “one man — one woman” marriage is the best way to achieve this. (I recognize that there are going to be many exceptions on both sides, but we are talking broad public policy here.)
To that end we have allocated a number of social and financial privileges to marriage. This seems reasonable, and although perhaps unfair in some instances, overall good policy. Sometimes life is not fair.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:02 pmPaul says:
Yes, the cramming of the throat does figure prominently in the imagination of the anti-gay, doesn’t it? I don’t know what, if anything, that tells us, exactly, but it is an intriguing — and generally accurate — observation.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:02 pmzuch says:
PersonFromPorlock:
Wow. For a “laid-back lot”, you Downeasters shore get all in a huff about a silly little issue of abstruse semantics, then.....
Cheers,
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:04 pmYankev says:
Good question, they are close in English, but not even remotely close in the original Hebrew.
Tzarah starts with the letter Tsadi (which makes the TS sound), and is from the root TSaR, which means narrow, i.e. being in a tight spot without adequate room to move. Sarah starts with the letter Sin (written the same as Shin, which makes the SH sound, but with a diacritical mark on the left, which gives it the S sound)and is from the root SH/SaR, which means ruler or prince. (Please no jokes about Sarah being the original Jewish princess.)
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:04 pmEH says:
If only PeteP were as honest as Gainesville in explaining that his attitude is dependent upon his religion. As otherwise explained with examples, marriage is not traditionally defined as a union between *a* man and *a* woman. It is only religion (or its proxy) that causes people to say so.
And I’m guessing a gay person could be prosecuted for a hate crime if they beat/killed someone because they were straight.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:05 pmJoseph Slater says:
In the midst of the umpteenth reiterations of the same arguments (I think Dale and Randy R. are right, FWIW), Sarcastro did contribute one of his best efforts — and I’m a fan generally.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:10 pmYankev says:
And judging by past discussions at VC about Prop. 8, Canadian legal tribunals, Arizona wedding photographers, and possible exemption for religious officials, religious institutions and particularly religious believers, a demand that anyone unwilling to join the celebration be civilly, criminally and economically punished.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:10 pmso and so says:
This is what I was trying to get at earlier. Equality would come with the privatization of marriage, but pursuing that solution doesn’t seem to be a high priority for SSM advocates. Since their present pursuit seems just as difficult as the alternative of privatizing marriage, I can only conclude that they are either ignorant of what effect such privatization would have or they have some other motive for pursuing legal recognition of same sex unions as marriage.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:11 pmStrict says:
“@Cato the Elder: How can you think homosexuality is normal? The normal, most-common-by-a-huge-margin sexual arousal pattern is arousal by a member of the opposite sex.”
That’s not what normal means.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:11 pmMaryanna says:
Would you please explain this statement, preferably with citation to authority, in light of no-fault divorce?
And to the posters who think the Britney Spears “marriage” is an unfair or useless comparison:
You are wrong, it is a perfect example to support those of us who believe in equal rights for everyone. It works like this: A major (often the primary) argument against SSM is that it would destroy the sanctity of marriage. So, proponents of SSM will then trot out examples like Britney Spears (bless her pointed little head) to find out if that is what is meant by sanctity of marriage. We then find out that they don’t actually mean sanctity or holiness or anything of that sort, but rather they mean that they think that SSM is icky.
As a divorce lawyer (yep, I’m one of those lawyers), I prefer to use the example of no-fault divorce — here in Georgia we use the phrase “irretreviably broken.” A marriage is irretreviably broken if one party to the marriage says it is, and no further evidence is required. You would be amazed at how many clients have told me that they want a divorce, not because of something the other party did, but merely because they just don’t want to be married any more.
And would I approve of entirely privatizing marriage and calling everything a civil union? Absodamnlutely — I would much prefer that the government keep entirely the hell out of the word “marriage.” But I agree with Randy — hoping for that is little different from tilting at windmills.
Disclosure: I am straight, married for 21 years, 3 children. My eldest (age 19) is gay and has had the same girlfriend since she was 15. They are engaged and planning a wedding trip to Europe for next summer. My only disapproval is that I wish she would finish college first.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:13 pmGov98 says:
with the callousness some here are displaying
In any issue, this is just a BS argument... and has all the persuasiveness of 3rd grade... (if you’re really my friend you’d do this for me.) I’m sorry, and it reeks of emotional blackmail.
If were talking politics and policy then before I pass some law to reduce the BAC to .02 or raise the BAC to .15, we should consider the issue callously quite frankly, and not call out the legislator who is “callous” to the mom who lost her 19 year old son to a .03 “Drunk Driver” or the mom whose son is now in prison for “just a .14″ “accident.”
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:15 pmYankev says:
With Max Frost in the White House, anything is possible.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:15 pmCato The Elder says:
How physiologically normal is a child who is allowed to be brought to term with Down’s Syndrome, not aborted despite serious mental deficits? Sure gays are “statistically abnormal.” People with IQs over 120 are also statistically “abnormal”, but since plenty of the lawyers, academics, programmers who comment here have intelligence at or exceeding that mark, I’d say that isn’t the criterion you want to appeal to. Unlike homosexual activists, I still think it is an open question whether homosexuality is “medically abnormal”, that is, whether everything is operating as it ‘should’ — some think it could be caused might be caused by pathogens, or misfiring hormones. One more empirical problem to solve. But myself, in the public policy realm, I subscribe to the “clinical” definition of abnormality, where the prerogative to diagnose a “problem” lies only with the individual who perceives it is a problem. You don’t know enough, I don’t know enough, about psychology and biology to make sweeping judgments about their humanity. The naturalistic fallacy is a FALLACY.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:15 pmyankee says:
The problem is that “normal” is a value judgment masquerading as a statistical one. One doesn’t say that Jews aren’t “normal” (or, worse, are “abnormal”) just because there aren’t that many of them. Same with University of Kansas alumni, or the left-handed, or members of most other statistical minorities.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:16 pmrichard says:
How about this, PeteP. I’ll make you a bet. I’ll give you ten to one odds– your $1000 against my $1000– that gay marriage will be approved in a state wide vote within ten years. If you are so sure of your “NEVER” pronouncement, you’ll jump at the bet.
Meant to say your $100 against my $1000. You in?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:17 pmDuffy Pratt says:
Suppose the post is right, and the tide is turning inexorably toward gay marriages. What if the opponents decided to counter this by trying to amend the amendment processes of the state constitutions so that later referendums could not legalize same sex marriage? They wouldn’t even have to go over the top to do it, just make it so the amendment process for domestic relation issues in some way mirrored the federal amendment process. Just wondering why no-one has tried this. In many states, it seems like its easier to amend the constitution than it is to get a law passed.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:20 pmJohn says:
I think “coming after kids” is probably the wrong approach, but I also think that it is the wrong formulation as well. While any number of all types are subject to alarmists ideas. Focusing on the worst of formulations, is a sort of strawman that avoids the essential logical contradiction at the heart of the legal arguments.
With SSM we are not talking about “personal preference” anymore, but compelling public assessment of “personal preference” as equal based, not on any empirical similarities attested by the people, but a thin academic rationale, which has no where near the empirical ground record. All such talk about “privacy” or “right to choose” goes out the window when the expert, or specialist, are talking about compelling public recognition of what the public does not recognize.
Before, somebody might throw “slavery” up there, let me point out what few of us should have no problem with: there is little doubt that one who remains a slave is a “victim” and the law that keeps him in such a state is not providing “equal protection” between this man and another man who has no such jeopardy. The state of slavery is a state of victimhood. For there to be a similar relationship, the state of remaining unmarried–or having one’s personal preference not recognized as marriage–would have to be “victimization” itself. Few single people consider themselves “unprotected” and the “danger” of having the state not recognize who you personally choose to marry, means that siblings that want to have their relationship recognized as marriage are similarly “unprotected”.
That said, I think this is the essence of what we fear from schools: state sponsored propaganda: “Your mommy and daddy are wrong and nasty and haters.”
Now, we have come to accept that denying people the “right to vote” is victimization. So if I can’t read, I get to vote, because not being able to vote is my right. The Obama administration is now making the case that the lack of brand-name voters to read the brand-name in an election, by outlawing national party labels for local candidates, as many states have done as political reform, denies those brand-name voters “the right to vote” and they are “victims”. So that a person denied their vote is always “unprotected”. Once I can vote, supposedly, that is my way to register my preference to the government. Needlessly constraining the scope of my vote, when there is no clear case of “protection” and no clear case of “personal preference” but when the effect is on the people’s right to prefer one societal direction to another, as well as content of publicly-paid-for schools just might be a lack of a person’s equal protection under law, no matter how you slice it. If my vote should only count for those things that the expert and specialist class has determined that I can be trusted with, what the hell right are you protecting?! My right to consent to my betters?
Essentially at stake here is the anti-democratization (yes, I know it’s a republic) and the expert/specialist class control of the people through publicly financed education via expert/specialist propaganda. You may not agree. Your vote gives you the right to counter me and disagree. My vote gives me the right to counter and disagree. By kicking all borderline social-frontier cases to the experts and specialists is to deny many people the case that their vote should count for anything.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:21 pmSkyler says:
yankee noted:
They are what they are. It’s a definition. Homosexuality is by definition perverse. Its causes are varied and perhaps genetic at times. Doesn’t mean I hate them.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:23 pmCJColucci says:
I had low expectations for this comment thread, but not this low. OT, Randy, do you work in lower Manhattan, by any chance? I saw someone outside my office building the other day who looked just like your picture.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:23 pmmamiejane says:
Yankev...my point was not that men beating women is one variety of marriage, it’s that the definition of marriage used to be founded on the concept of the wife as the property of the husband. That’s traditional marriage. In America anyway, we now see marriage as recognition by the state of a romantic attachment involving the free will of both parties. Marriage allows the state and those who contract with the couple to understand the consequences of entering a transaction with two people who constitute a single entity. Gay marriage is far closer to our current definition of marriage than is the property transaction that we used to call marriage. The reality is, it’s not much of a leap.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:25 pmMaryanna says:
My husband is a K-State graduate. He would beg to differ on whether UK graduates are “normal.”
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:26 pmbadlaw says:
These threads turn theoretical so quickly.
Why is nobody considering the fact that since Maine has pretty expansive civil union legislation, and regardless if you like it or not, DOMA still restricts access to federal marriage incentives, the main argument by the No on 1ers relied on sloganeering than anything substantive. People might reconsider their conservative views about marriage if they think you’re being denied a civil right, but if what you want, you already can obtain, and what you’re labeling a civil right is only nominal, there likely isn’t going to be a huge shift.
Also, I really don’t think the whole “it’s gonna happen whether you like it or not” mentality is going to hold up to snuff. People take the liberal pundits, Hollywood, and politically-active young people rhetoric too seriously. When people turn 30, have kids, start paying taxes, they change. It’s not as simple as that, but life is a process, and it’s kind of always been true that older people are more conservative and younger people are more liberal. The only way the idea that gay marriage is necessary will hold as we get older (because we are becoming an older nation) is by developing some consensus NOW that it is a good idea. But, you wont. Because people will always remember the opposition as well, and they will come to see that the gay marriage crowd can be vindictive, spiteful, hateful, bigoted, and dishonest, too.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:35 pmSonicfrog says:
Have you ever seen or read the studies? Was it good work? Probably not. The reason being gay is not listed as a disease is not because some guys in white coats decided on a whim that they didn’t want to be harassed by the “gay lobby” anymore, the line often espoused by Rush or Michael Savage. It’s because there are no scientific or biological scientific studies that show any specific abnormality that can be identified. Bipolar disorder is an illness. It has clear chemical markers and can be treated with drugs. Same with dementia. Alzheimer’s has been linked to a generative condition involving the hypothalamus. There are no determining factors that one can look at chemical or biological, there is no environmental conditioning that has been identified, that causes gayness. Gayness is, as far as science can determine, a variation, not a disease. Just because you don’t like the idea of homosexuality and think it’s icky, that doesn’t qualify it as a disease.
There are almost certainly strong genetic factors. Studies on twins show this. Of identical twins who have one gay twin, in study after study after study, the other is gay more than 50% of the time. So I know that you’re thinking “Ha, you’re an idiot! If it was genetic, then the other twin would be gay 100% of the time”. If being gay was an absolute genetic trait, then yes, that would be correct. But sexuality is a complicated thing, yet this study does show that genes do play a part. How? Because the same type of studies were done on fraternal (non-identical) twins, and the rate of homosexuality being a common trait falls to 15 to % percent, much closer to the average of the population, which is about 8 to 10 %. That means that having the same set of genes increases the chances that you will be gay.
Yes, no one has found “the gay gene”, but so what. One of the first traits to be identified as definitely genetic is eye color. That was back in the 1850’s. Would it surprise you to learn that we STILL haven’t determined exactly which genes control eye color? And look at the variations in eye color. Gayness has the same variation. Some are totally, 100% gay, and have no desire for the opposite sex. Some, eh, either way works.
Anyway, back the topic. I asked a question earlier, and have yet to see an answer.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:40 pmRandy says:
Steve: ” Does that make sense?”
Sure does, and thanks. But on a much deeper level, it makes no sense at all. But that’s just my perspective!
Ten four: “First, the most vocal advocates don’t seem willing to settle for tolerance. They seem to want validation via public celebration. Heather Has Two Mommies (or Dads) writ large. Tolerance I grant and readily, but frankly the demand for celebration is a bit much. I’d like to be left alone and tolerated too.
Second, once past the “one man, one woman” rule, I find it hard to see where its possible to draw a line. Polygamy (which I think is quite bad for women), and even more inventive structures seem likely to result. There are advocates today, and given the current “flexible” legal environment, I think we end up with anything goes in the end. See One above.
Third, I’m become pragmatically and increasingly concerned over the last few years about the negative social effects of family breakdown. This creates some widespread, very expensive and difficult to counter social pathologies — single parent households, rising and high rates of out-of-wedlock births, educational failures, etc. Its hardest on the kids.”
Thanks for your post. May I address these each?
1. Tolerance. If gays have a right to participate in our society, then what’s wrong with Heather and her two Mommies? OUt of the thousands of children’s books published each year, only a few deal with gay parents. Gay parents do exist. So your child learns that sometimes, a fellow students might have gay parents. What’s the problem? I understand you might be uncomfortable around gays, but trust me, the more you are, the more you like us!
If you look at school teaching prior to the 1960s, you will find virtually all the books involved white kids. Black kids were non-existent. Once black kids started making it into books, I’m sure some parents were uncomfortable with it. Eventually, they learn that it isn’t a big deal at all.
Celebration? We have Black Pride Month. Is that too much celebration of black heritage? We have one day for Gay Pride. I have greek friends and believe me, you have never seen Greek pride as at a greek wedding or holiday. You are free to join in or ignore it, same as with gays.
I think part of the problem is that gays have been closeted for generations, and so everyone ( including still a lot of gays) think that hiding is the best place. It isn’t. And here’s the bottom line: whether we have SSM or not won’t stop gays from coming out of the closet. I don’t mean that as a threat, but you have to consider that stopping SSM isn’t going to do anything to stop us from celebrating who we are.
2. Polygamy. Simple. In no jurisdiction that currently allows SSM has it lead to polygamy. But if it really bothers you, then let’s start up a referendum right now to ban polygamy in your state. I’ll even sign the petition. No doubt it will pass with a wide margin. Therefore, we can have SSM and your fears of polygamy will be put to rest.
3. I understand your concern about family breakdown. That’s exactly why you should be in favor of SSM. Many gay couples currently have children, either through adoption, previous marriage, natural birth or whatever. Every study I have seen has shown that children whose parents are married do better in school and score better on most every test imaginable. Therefore, if you are concerned about the children and families, then you would most definately *demand* that gay parents get married before they can adopt or have children.
I would also note that all the social problems were cause not by gays, but by straights. Please don’t blame us for your problems! I realize that you might say that this will worsen if gays get married, but we now have some data in several countries and states, and the data show that none of these problems have worsened once gays were allowed to marry. If you can find otherwise, please inform us.
Hope that helps!
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:42 pmmrcausality says:
I assume you then feel the same about taxes?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:47 pmRandy says:
Slylar: “Homosexuality is by definition perverse. Its causes are varied and perhaps genetic at times.
Can you elaborate? Please inform me what makes me ‘perverse’ I really want to know!
CJ: ” Randy, do you work in lower Manhattan, by any chance?”
I wish. I’m in Washington, DC.
” I saw someone outside my office building the other day who looked just like your picture.” (sigh) I get that fairly often. I joke that I have the ‘common face’ that everyone else seems to have. But thanks for thinking of me!
“That said, I think this is the essence of what we fear from schools: state sponsored propaganda: “Your mommy and daddy are wrong and nasty and haters.”
I wonder how schools handle kids in certain places in America where racism is still alive and well. Do they teach kids that blacks are just like other Americans, and so any parent who says so is wrong, nasty and a hater? Or do they continue to teach that blacks are lazy and shiftless, just like our President?
Yankev: “And judging by past discussions at VC about Prop. 8, Canadian legal tribunals, Arizona wedding photographers, and possible exemption for religious officials, religious institutions and particularly religious believers, a demand that anyone unwilling to join the celebration be civilly, criminally and economically punished.”
Well, if you violate the law, you should be punished, no? And don’t you think that your statement is a bit over the top, that anyone NOT joining the celebration is punished three ways? Out of 300 million people in the US, I don’t see mass numbers of people being punished in any way shape or form.
And it sorta ticks me off when people say this. Why? Because for decades, gays were the ones punished civilly, criminally and economically in far greater numbers than straights have ever been. Gay bars were raided, names published, people lost jobs — all on a business as usual attitude. It was a way to enforce the closeting of gays. All you had to do was identify someone as gay, and that’s all it took to fire a person, or lose their apartment. In many parts of the country today, that still happens. And all you can do is come up with two or three instances where someone actually violated that law and was held accountable, and you claim how unfair that is.
and perhaps it is. But that should make you all the more supportive of treating everyone equally.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:57 pmSteve says:
Since their present pursuit seems just as difficult as the alternative of privatizing marriage, I can only conclude that they are either ignorant of what effect such privatization would have or they have some other motive for pursuing legal recognition of same sex unions as marriage.
I think you made a gigantic leap of faith in your introductory clause. Put the issue of “the government has to stop recognizing marriage altogether” on the ballot in Maine and, in my opinion, it loses by a lot more than 53–47. In no way would this concept be easier for folks to buy into. And it would create the impression that the SSM advocates are trying to take everyone else’s marriage away, as opposed to simply getting their own recognized.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:59 pmSkyler says:
Randy, you’re so helpless. No matter, I’ll oblige. Answers.com says “perverse” means:
I’d say the first definition just about hits the nail on the head. You’ve every right to be perverse and it’s none of my business. But homosexuality is still perverse.
It continues:
Again, we’re looking at the first definition. Is this making it any easier for you to understand?
Let’s continue with the same source:
Here they’ve switched it up and put the applicable definition at the end. Got it? No hate involved, just a definition. I can say it’s “depraved” if you prefer that one.
Let’s see, answers.com says “depraved” means:
So there you go. Glad to help.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:08 pmTim says:
And where would I find those people? Last I checked, Prop 8, the largest empirical test of this theory, pitted the homophobic Mormon Church against gay rights supporters. So who are these people who are not homophobic and yet oppose gay marriage?
I personally don’t think the government should be marrying anybody, but I still think that opposing civil marriage for homosexuals is homophobia.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:12 pmPositive Liberty » Stapled Together says:
[...] be forced to take Anal Sex 101 in kindergarten. On this, Dale Carpenter is the voice of reason. Sadly, the voice of reason seldom prevails: the central concern seems to have been what will be taught in public schools to children being [...]
DangerMouse says:
I personally don’t think the government should be marrying anybody, but I still think that opposing civil marriage for homosexuals is homophobia.
And that is why you will continue to lose these elections...
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:16 pmSonicfrog says:
Homosexuality is perverse.... well, that explains why I’ve been so “cranky and peevish” lately.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:18 pmYankev says:
First, “property” is a relative term, and the view of the wife as property of the husband was not a feature, of, e.g., Roman law. Different societies have afforded women different degrees of protection in marriage, and those who are not persuaded that ssm is a good idea are not going to be persuaded by suggestions that by opposing ssm they are advocating wife beating or the denial of married women’s right to own property or to contract.
What you have not addressed is this: the one constant in marriage in all its local varieties and temporal and legal evolution has been the bond between a man and a woman, whether or not a man was permitted to maintain more than one such bond at a time.
Part of the disconnect is whether marriage is “a romantic attachment involving the free will of both parties” — a glorified form of “going steady” that is purely a matter of hedonism and contract, or whether it also involves a duty and a commitment to society, to G-d, to children, as well as to one’s spouse. To say that marriage must be either a propety transaction or an extended form of juvenile recreational dating omits a great deal.
But even leaving that aside, many Americans still see marriage as an attachment between a man and a woman involving the free will of both parties. To many who see the sexes as different, and who do not view gender as an artificial societal construct, changing that definition to encompass a relationship between two people of the same sex is a huge leap. A leap that many people do not think should be made lightly, if at all.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:20 pmyankee says:
We are told that gays are perverted, but that those so claiming do not hate gay people. In support of the “perverted” claim, we are told that homosexuality is “perverse” “by definition” because gays are “corrupt or directed toward evil or depraved behavior.”
Q.E.D.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:23 pmSenatorX says:
Randy I know people who have been straight their entire lives into their 40’s before becoming gay. Then gone straight again, and gay again, etc. I think there is definitely many with whom being gay is genetic like you say but not for all. For some it seems to be a choice. Or if you don’t like “choice” at least related to changes in their environment that modify their behavior(like a woman who gets turned off men because of an abusive husband). I don’t mean to cloud the issue but because of what I have seen I always have difficulty with the purely genetic view of homosexuality.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:25 pmRandy says:
Ah, So I’m perverted because I don’t do what is ‘right or good.’
So if I marry your daughter and have sex with her, you’d be very happy with that, because even though I’m gay, I’m doing what’s right and good?
I supposed interracial marriage is perverted too, because that isn’t right or good either.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:26 pmYankev says:
I can’t say I know much about the beliefs of the LDS church. But if your definition of homophobic is “believing that one man having sex with another is an immoral act”, then the definition of homophobia is pretty broad and takes in a lot of people, which is why Randy’s (and others’) advocacy of payback via uniform enforcement of thought crime laws, as well as the false comparison to racism, has me more than a bit concerned.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:30 pmRandy says:
Yankev: ” the one constant in marriage in all its local varieties and temporal and legal evolution has been the bond between a man and a woman, whether or not a man was permitted to maintain more than one such bond at a time”
Pure baloney. Most royal and upper class marriages in history, whatever the culture, were arranged, sometimes as early as birth. In many societies today, arranged marriages are the norm. A bond may form later, after marriage, but it neither expected nor necessary for the marriage to be valid.
“But even leaving that aside, many Americans still see marriage as an attachment between a man and a woman involving the free will of both parties. ”
For many generations, many Americans saw marriage as an attachment between a man and a woman of the same race involving the free will of both parties. Funny how that changed. Today, most people no longer care. Those who still DO care are forced to accept these marriages against their will. Still the republic carries on, and no one has suggested that any of the problems of society today are caused by interracial marriages.
“A leap that many people do not think should be made lightly, if at all.”
And yet, in many places, we *have* made that leap. We have asked you many times: Please identify specific harm that they think might happen if gays marry, and also identify any specific harm that has actually happened in places where gays marry.
After that amount of research, you might also want to inform us of any benefits that have incurred as a result of SSM, as there surely are some.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:32 pmPeteP says:
Richard — “How about this, PeteP. I’ll make you a bet. I’ll give you ten to one odds– your $1000 against my $1000– that gay marriage will be approved in a state wide vote within ten years. If you are so sure of your “NEVER” pronouncement, you’ll jump at the bet.”
You math makes as much sense as your politics :-)
BTW, I don’t gamble. I think it’s for fools. Which does not mean I think it should be illegal :-)
Randy — “I agree, if that were true. But it isnt’. The fact is that hate crimes laws encompass not only sexual orientation, but also race, religion, and a whole other list of factors. So, under current law, for example, if a black man assualts you because he hates whites, then he gets hieghtened sanctions applied against him.”
And IMO ALL ‘thought crime punishments’ are wrong.
“Then prove me a liar. Show me one ballot measure anywhere were gays were allowed more rights than straights. ”
Again, you mis-cast the debate, and attempt to manipulate the foundational dialog towards a point you think can not be defended, and away from the point being made. The point being made is ‘every gay marriage law or ruling attempts to set up homosexual ‘marriage’ as equal to heterosexual, and entitled to the SAME advantages, not ’
better ones’. The argument is over making a perversion legally the equal of normalcy.
“AGain, please show me what specific rights gays in Washington now have that straight people don’t.” — as above, you intentionally mis-cast the argument, and invent one that was never made. See above.
‘’ I also think prostitution is disgusting, and I also think it should be legal. ( hint — never been to one in my life, never will, legal or not — it’s disgusting to me ).”
I think that statement speaks more about you than you think it does.”
That’s nice. ‘I don’t go to whores, it turns my stomach to even think of it’, and ‘I think adults should be able to make whatever consenting private arrangements they choose with each other’. I don’t see a conflict there, I see my personal choice, and me respecting the personal choices of others.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:37 pmRichard Johnston says:
Well if marriage is to defined (as distinguished from “hedonism and contract”) as a duty and commitment to society, God and children, then why is it not available only to non-atheist fertile people? Insofar as civil authorities are concerned I don’t think a commitment to God can be a permissible consideration. I never had children with either of my two (consecutive not concurrent!) wives — for all I know I have been shooting blanks all these years — and I wonder now if either of my marriages should have been recognized by the state.
I attended a memorial service Saturday for a very good friend, a psychologist who has done a world of good for a great many people through the years, and who was also a mover and shaker in the local marriage equality organization. She also officiated at my own wedding, and I know that was bittersweet for her because the same thing was not available (insofar as the state was concerned) to her and her partner of 15 years. She did it anyway out of the generosity of her spirit. I cannot for the life of me understand how denying her and her partner recognition of their marriage (or the marriages of the many many good people like them) could have caused any harm to anyone or anything.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:41 pmSkyler says:
Randy,
Would marrying my daughter make you no longer a homosexual? Seems unlikely. My daughter has a choice in whether you marry her or not, well she will when she’s old enough anyway. Marriage is not a person decision, you see. That’s kind of the whole point, so your strawman (which is generally all you ever do) is kind of pointless.
But if my daughter were to marry you, then if she were happy, then I would be happy, because I will have hopefully taught her what happiness is. And the main point being that happiness does not come from other people, you have to find it within yourself.
I hope you are likewise happy. I don’t hate you, I might not even dislike you were it not for your being politically obnoxious and all. But if you are a homosexual, then you are, at least on that level, perverse. That’s not an emotional charge, that’s just a fact.
I have no idea what interracial marriage has to do with anything. There’s nothing perverse about being any certain race. Looks like another strawman.
The thing is, Randy, you have no answer to my stand because you can’t overcome the definition that I apply. You may not agree with my use of the definition, but it is at least arguable from a scientific and social standpoint. That is why you must use strawmen and you must assign labels of hatred or fear to those opposing you because there is no answer otherwise. You have to move the argument away from substance or you can’t go anywhere.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:42 pmesurience says:
So because I want to be able to get married to a person I love, which has to be a man (since I’m a gay man) — that means I view gender as a “artificial societal construct” ?
What? If that was my view, I could presumably find happiness marrying a woman.
Marriage equality is necessary because the genders are different (at least on average, there are individuals that blur the lines), not because they are the same.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:44 pmBrett says:
Actually, we’ll just wait ten years for some of the older generation to die, and then pass it with flying colors. There’s a strong generational gap on gay marriage.
This is disappointing, but as the author mentioned, it’s more of a temporary setback. There’s been a steady trend towards increasing acceptance of gay marriage, particularly among the younger generations, and that’s only going to get stronger as members of the more homophobic older generations die off. My guess is that we’ll have a couple more states (including Maine) in the legalized gay marriage camp by 2012. Eventually, there will be enough that we can then get a repeal of DOMA at the national level, and laws protecting gay marriage rights.
The “OMG they’ll Gayify my children!” bit always makes me laugh. Do these parents think that their kids beyond a certain age don’t know who gays or homosexuals are? Many of them probably know an open homosexual or two — I did, and I grew up in a highly conservative suburban area.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:45 pmRichard Johnston says:
Perhaps I should brush up on my use of the language. What I meant was “I cannot for the life of me understand how denying her and her partner recognition ... could have AVOIDED any harm....”
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:49 pmesurience says:
Not a fact at all. Homosexual behavior (love and intimacy) is completely normal, and healthy for a person who is homosexual. Just like heterosexual behavior is completely normal and healthy for heterosexuals.
Are people that write with their left-hand ‘perverse’ under your definition? Do you go around calling them that?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:49 pmYankev says:
I was speaking of a legal bond, not an emotional bond, as my earlier posts should have made clear. If they didn’t, let me clarify it now. And more to the point, nothing in your post refutes the argument that these marriages were between a man and a woman. That makes the rest of your post irrelevant. The false comparison to race is worse than irrelevant. It has been addressed and refuted many threads. It may be persuasive to people who already view ssm as a self-evident matter of fairness that only a hateful meany would oppose. It is not likley to persuade anyone outside of that category.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:50 pmSonicfrog says:
SenatorX, see my post above. I didn’t see where Randy said that being gay was purely genetic, but I may have missed it.
How many people do you know who have “decided” to “become gay”. Did all these people tell you they had decided to “become gay”? What were the exact environmental factors that modified their behavior? Divorce? Maybe that happened because the guy is, you know, gay, but doesn’t want to be gay, so he married her, maybe even loved her, but had gay hook-ups on the side, the wife found out, and viola, they get a divorce. Yet he still doesn’t want to be gay and is too uncomfortable with it so he goes back and forth, dating women, dating men. This condition is commonly called “being in the closet”. I can’t speak for Randy, but me? Been There, Done That. I didn’t want to be gay. When I was in college, I dated a few girls. The sex was great. I was even in love with one wonderful girl and thought about marrying her. But I knew better. I had already seen some older friends go through the exact situation I just described. Plus I recognized the base dishonesty of doing so. As much as I cared for Sylvia, she was not what I ultimately desired. Hard to explain, and it may not make sense to someone who has not been in the same boat. But it is what it is. To marry her to try and escape that which I desired, and hurt her in the end, that would have indeed been “perverse”.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:53 pmFreedom says:
Professor Carpenter, with all due respect your post is disturbing. You are basically repeating the “inevitable” argument that homosexuals always retreat to. Your post reads like this: “We will do this, whether you like it or not.”
Why can’t you focus on civil unions? That’s a winning battle in many of these moderate places. Why do you think that you have the right to destroy something that means a lot to many people?
No matter how much you try to pretend otherwise, same-sex “marriage” will never be “marriage.” You people have already qualified it as “same-sex “marriage”” which in and of itself implies something different.
The fact is, men and women ARE different, and that difference is what makes a marriage unique. Why not focus on getting civil unions and quit trying to play games with words.
By the way, what is your take on the terrorist threats made by the supporters of same-sex “marriage” after they lost. Here is the specific quote:
“Will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives.”
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:55 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
zuch says:
Uhuh. Wait ’til the government decides that “hate speech” means any dissident political demonstration and you’ll see how “abstruse” the argument is.
Incidentally, I’m not a real Downeaster, only been here forty years....
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:55 pmRandy says:
Skylar: ” You may not agree with my use of the definition, but it is at least arguable from a scientific and social standpoint.”
Of course I don’t agree. But whether homosexuality is a perversion is certainly not arguable from a scientific standpoint, as science never makes value judgements. Society, of course, does. And for a long time, I agree society found it a perversion, but thankfully that is changing.
“And the main point being that happiness does not come from other people, you have to find it within yourself.” On this we agree. That’s why I was very unhappy for so much of my life as I tried to be straight. Only when I realized I was gay and stopped fighting it did I find happiness. Likewise, should your daughter or son, or other close relative of your realize that they are gay, I would hope that you would be happy for them. And if they should be so lucky as to find another gay person who loves them and wants to spend the rest of their lives together, I would hope that you would be happy for them as a couple.
In which case, it really doesn’t matter whether its’ a perversion or not, does it?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:55 pmYankev says:
First, what makes you think that atheists cannot also carry out a duty to G-d, simply because they don’t realize that is what they are doing? Also, why not add “non-anarchists and non-subversives” to your list? The argument of childless couples has been addressed on numerous VC threads, and the fact that infertile couples (some of whom are infertile by choice) are allowed to marry does not invalidate the fact that marriage is in large measure an institution for propagating, raising and protecting children, just as the existence of widowhood, divorce and remarriage do not invalidate the fact that marriage implies a life time commitment.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:57 pmMichael Ejercito says:
If one were to add up the number of social conservatives and Roman Catholic anchor babies in Maine, there would not be enough to fill the bleachers at a high school gym.
How same-sex “marriage” got defeated there may become an episode of Unsolved Mysteries
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:57 pmRandy says:
Freedom: “Why do you think that you have the right to destroy something that means a lot to many people? ”
How does expanding marriage to gay people destroy anything? Considering that gay marriage is now allowed in Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa, and Connecticut, what exactly has been destroyed there? Are straights no longer allowed to get married in these states? Has marriage changed at all for them? If so, please explain.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:02 pmesurience says:
So the most important thing about marriage, what gives it it’s uniqueness, is that one person has a penis and the other has a vagina? Wow, what a degrading way to define marriage from a self-styled “defender” of it.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:03 pmRandy says:
Yankev: “First, what makes you think that atheists cannot also carry out a duty to G-d, simply because they don’t realize that is what they are doing? ”
Excellent point! And what makes you think that gays cannot also carry out a duty to God simply because they don’t realize that is what they are doing?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:04 pmesurience says:
So, if allowing those infertile couples to get married does not invalidate that marriage is “in in large measure an institution for propagating, raising and protecting children” — how would allowing a same-sex couple to get married invalidate those things?
What makes you think a same-sex couple getting married can’t be carrying out a duty to G-d?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:08 pmSplunge says:
And it wasn’t about the possibility that SSM might send a “message” that family structure doesn’t matter. People don’t really buy the notion that granting legal protection to existing families could send that message...
Instead, the central concern seems to have been what will be taught in public schools...The not-so-subtle subtext of the debate over public schools...is that the gays are coming to get your kids.
You know what, Dale? As someone who is inherently quite sympathetic to your cause, you have just got to stop saying — and thinking — things like this, or you are never going to get where you want to go. You must stop implying your opponents are largely clowns with clownish fears, and start taking what they say at face value, and seriously.
Because one thing that’s very clear is that SSM advocates are seriously misreading the public mood. You keep putting up these initiatives and you keep getting slaughtered at the polls, and every time that happens your general cause gets set back, not forward, because people’s opinions start to harden when they have to actually make a definite choice about things — in this case, how to vote. People who had squishy opinions and who might’ve been persuadable become much less so when they have to make a firm public decision about which way to vote, and they come down opposed to you. You know what they say: the definition of madness is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different outcomes. 31 straight electoral defeats? Your strategy is madness.
But I doubt SSM advocates intend this. You’re just estimating the general attitudes of the public disastrously wrong, and living in fantasyland about the effectiveness of your arguments, or the importance of various factors (e.g. GOTV efforts, funding) that might or might not contribute to success.
I really think you need to recalibrate. Start taking your opponents’ concerns seriously. Stop caricaturing them. There may be a sliver of homophobe goofballs that think “gays are coming to bugger the toddlers,” but that does not describe the bulk of rank and file voters who are opposed to you. There’s something else, something on which reasonable people can agree — because you can’t construct a 54% opposition majority out of unreasonable Neanderthals alone. There just aren’t enough of them.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:10 pmRichard Johnston says:
I had not stopped to think that one might be fulfilling a duty of which they had no knowledge. But I do think that a “duty to God,” known or unknown, cannot be a permissible consideration in the state’s determination of what marriages to recognize. (BTW — honest question — why do you not spell out “God”?)
And I do realize the childless couple thing is a bit facile and has been countered before. But I do quibble with the premise that marriage must needs be based on (the likelihood or possibility of) childbearing.
While widowhood and remarriage do not necessarily contravene the proposition of marriage as a lifetime commitment, divorce certainly does. Although divorce may not be an option for Californians for long. I think the proposition I linked to above — which would outlaw divorce in order to “protect marriage” — will almost certainly get on the ballot and has a decent chance of passage if only as a backlash against the passage of prop 8. Depends on turnout, but I consider it a realistic possibility.
And then of course we’ll have a booming legal industry in contractual separation arrangements which will result in MINOs (marriages in name only).
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:12 pmFreedom says:
There is a counterfeit to marriage in IO, MA, VT and CT. It’s not real marriage. By its very presence is demeans and devalues the real thing. Marriage is founded on the distinction of sex. That alone is what makes a marriage a marriage. You don’t have to like that fact, but the fact is men and women are different, and the differences are what make marriage such a valuable and unique institution.
When the government endorses a perversion of that uniqueness, it destroys the uniqueness. That’s exactly what people are rejecting.
This is ALL about people trying to use government force to get other people to accept their behavior as normal. That’s why civil unions aren’t what these people fight for. Instead they think if they invent a new term (“same-sex “marriage””) that suddenly they will be just like the rest of society and that they can then use the government to force the rest of society to accept them.
You can claim that its not about acceptance, but you’d be lying. Otherwise civil unions would be the way that you would go.
BTW: I noticed that you ignored the terrorist threats, again here is the specific quote:
“We Will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives.”
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:15 pmesurience says:
Okay, Splunge. Can you please describe the bulk of voters that are opposed to us? Because the schools thing is straight from the ‘Yes on 1′ advertisements, which perhaps you are unfamiliar with. But they really did say that unless Question 1 passed “gay marriage will be taught in public schools” — although, confusingly, they said that it was “already happening” (which would seem to make Question 1 irrelevant to schools issue).
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:20 pmTheBadness says:
I was speaking of a legal bond, not an emotional bond, as my earlier posts should have made clear. If they didn’t, let me clarify it now. And more to the point, nothing in your post refutes the argument that these marriages were between a man and a woman. That makes the rest of your post irrelevant. The false comparison to race is worse than irrelevant. It has been addressed and refuted many threads. It may be persuasive to people who already view ssm as a self-evident matter of fairness that only a hateful meany would oppose.
Indeed, “traditional” marriage involved a man and a woman. In the United States, for many years, a man and the woman either of the white race, or any combination of non-white races.
The comparison to race has not been refuted to those who view continued disparate treatment of homosexuals as an expression of the same human tendency to marginalize individuals on the basis of irrelevant characteristics.
And, in more elegant and civilized terminology, you repeat the argument that marriage should not encompass same-sex unions ... Because that’s not how we did it before.
That argument (the appeal to tradition) is only valid to the extent marriage has a static definition. You seem to feel it reducible to bonds between a man and some number of women (each male-female union being, of course, a purely bilateral legal tie with no legal incidence whatsoever on any other of the man’s spouses). Which rather ignores that redefining marriage to encompass only monogamy (any marriages beyond #1 being void ab initio) was a significant evolution, as was the significant social evolution that transformed marriage from a contract between the parties’ families to a contract between the parties.
Instead, you pick one element (gender) and elevate it as the irreducible core; the question, if you will, is left with hat in hand.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:20 pmCato The Elder says:
I’m wondering where the sanctity of marriage has disappeared to when the divorce rate is breaking 50%, and the illegitimacy rate in America is pushing record highs. How many anti gay-marriage folks have relatives living in sin, yet aren’t similarly exercised about that? What happened to the Biblical instruction of removing the beam in our collective eyes before trying for the mote in our brother’s?
Don’t get me wrong, I am very much the traditionalist, indeed I could hardly describe myself as a person who would feel very comfortable in the counter-cultural milieu. But the selective piety of many social conservatives on gay marriage annoys me a great deal. Sure, it’s easy to quote Leviticus glibly but there are an awful lot of people who want to play cafeteria Christian using “soft” verses from the New Testament to justify the type of immorality they like to indulge in. If you want claim the imprimatur of heaven to restrict civil liberties you had better go for broke in following heaven’s strictures; I much more respect Yankev’s — who I understand is an Orthodox Jew — position on this issue than your ordinary social con. Personally, the hypocrisy I witnessed in the church body when I was young compared to the bromides of their political rhetoric was a large factor in what caused me to leave it.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:24 pmesurience says:
It hasn’t actually. No matter how you try to spin it, you’re applying a standard to same-sex couples that you aren’t applying to opposite-sex couples. The argument goes like this:
1) Same-sex couples can’t naturally conceive children together, so they shouldn’t be allowed to get married.
Response: Uhh, but what about those infertile heterosexual couples?
2) Who cares about them, they’re a tiny minority, the point is that _most_ heterosexuals can conceive together.
Response: So what you’re saying is that since most of the people who are married can naturally conceive together, allowing some infertile heterosexual couples to also get married isn’t a problem.
3) Exactly!
Response; So, allowing infertile couples to get married isn’t a problem, as long as they’re heterosexual... but allowing a gay infertile couple to get married would be? Why?
4) Because they’re gay.
Response: I see, so we’re back to where we started... nothing to do with fertility at all.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:28 pmSteve says:
It’s going to be funny in 20 or 30 or 50 years or however long it takes, when gay marriage is viewed just like interracial marriage today, in the sense that no one will admit to opposing it. Apparently all those laws were on the books for all those years in all those states, without anyone actually thinking interracial marriage ought to be banned, except maybe one justice of the peace in Louisiana. “Oh, interracial marriage, that’s fine of course... but SAME-SEX marriage, well obviously that’s completely different!”
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:30 pmSteve says:
Sure, it’s easy to quote Leviticus glibly but there are an awful lot of people who want to play cafeteria Christian using “soft” verses from the New Testament to justify the type of immorality they like to indulge in.
Recently there was a story about this really bad gay-bashing in Queens where the perpetrator actually had Leviticus 18:22 tattooed on his arm. Not just the citation, mind you, but the whole verse. I assume that will make it challenging for his lawyer to argue against a sentence enhancement.
Anyway, the punch line is that Leviticus 18:22 says, of course, not to lie with a man as you would lie with a woman. This verse is so important he got a tattoo. But Leviticus 19:28 — in the very next chapter — says that God forbids tattoos! Talk about your cafeteria Christian.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:34 pmYankev says:
What a degrading (and narrow minded) way to describe the difference between men and women. If you think the only difference is in the genitalia, you are missing a great deal.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:35 pmCato The Elder says:
I have no idea what the “men and women are different” argument has to do with anything. I heartily agree that they’re different. So what? Men and monkeys are different too. Or is it that that difference is the sine qua non of marriage? If you’re arguing that gays and lesbians can’t take on certain “roles” that men and women do then argue that. Yet of course that rejoinder circles back onto claiming that marriage as a vehicle for parenting, and then you must grapple with the fact that we don’t deny people the right to get married for being poor parents or for even being infertile and unable to parent.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:35 pmscattergood says:
Sonicfrog could not be more wrong. The numbers wild hugely, are based on statistically insignificant numbers, and even then don’t come to the 50% or more numbers.
And as Sonicfrog points out, we don’t know what causes one person to engage in exclusively homosexual behavior is, or to engage in bi-sexual behavior, or to switch between heterosexual, homosexual, and bi-sexual behavior at different times. In fact it clear that it is not genetic determinism :
Even the American Psyciatric Association states that they know of no cause to homosexual behavior.
And this is the crux of the issue. If SSM were clearly genetically deterministic then discussions of equality, civil rights, etc would be on par with those of say racial groups. But it isn’t and thus the issue isn’t on par.
If one believes that they have no influence on their own behavior, that they are automotons to their sexual urges, then fine put what ever you want where ever you want. But don’t claim that because you FEEL you don’t have any influence that everbody has to support and accept that feeling of yours.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:37 pmRichard Johnston says:
Well, I was a bit imprecise there. I realize it’s been countered, by which I meant I know this is not original with me and it’s been addressed elsewhere; I actually agree with you that it’s not been countered successfully.
The argument as I understand it goes if marriage is all about the kids, then we must preclude marriages which do not involve childbearing, and God knows that means SSM. When you say yabbut what about infertile hetero couples you get an argument about the “then” part, i.e. that they are infrequent cases which nonetheless bear sufficient similarities to real married people (the childbearing kind) that we give them a pass. That is to say they do not detract from the premise, they’re just a little wiggle room in the conclusion.
I disagree with the “if” part. In the country, at this time, marriage need not be conditioned, not even conceptually, on childbearing at all. It is fully sufficient for the state to recognize a marriage that two consenting adults deem it conducive to their own happiness to be married. That is my view of things anyway.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:38 pmYankev says:
Judaeo-Christian morality, for one.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:39 pmYankev says:
Back in my days as a hanger-on at SDS, the serious SDS guys used to call that polarizing people. I never understood why it was supposed to be a good thing to do.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:42 pmYankev says:
It is nonetheless an important consideration to voters who cannot separate religion from morality. It is the same reason that I would not vote to legalize assassination or dueling, quite apart from any consideration of personal danger. If you prefer, make it duty to society. Society functions better when children are raised by one parent of each sex who are married to each other.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:46 pmesurience says:
I have control of my own behavior. I don’t have any control over the fact that I am a man who desires physical and emotional intimacy with another man, and that such intimacy is a critical part of my being self-fulfilled and happy — just as heterosexuals get self-fulfillment and happiness from physical and emotional intimacy.
Why are you suggesting I should deny myself happiness?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:47 pmYankev says:
Not relevant here; suffice it to say personal strictness going beyond the basic requirements on a matter of religious restriction.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:48 pmYankev says:
I have never understood the Christian view of divorce. In my faith, the same G-d who ordained marriage as a life long commitment also provided for divorce in certain cases where continuing the marriage would do more harm than good. But today’s culture of endlessly repeated cycles of marriage and divorce, marriage and divorce, are not what He told us we should be doing.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:52 pmesurience says:
Can I have a source on that? All the credible studies I know of say that children raised by same-sex couples turn out just as well.
I’m not disputing that studies do show that two-parent married households are better than 1-parent households, or 2-parent unmarried households — but these studies, in the 2-parent case, only examined heterosexual relationships.
How do you suppose that allowing a same-sex couple that is raising children to get married would be bad for their kids? Or do you just not care about those kids? Why are those kids not deserving of the same stability and legal protections that marriage provides?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:52 pmMichael Ejercito says:
What was the motive behind defining marriage as between one man and one woman back during 18th century England?
Are you implying that bigotry was the only possible motivation for defining marriage that way?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:57 pmYankev says:
First, the idea of a contract between the parties and not their families is older than you think, nor was the idea of a contract between the families universal at any time. Second, the reduction to monogamy is not as radical as you make it out to be; at least as far back as ancient Greece, monogamy was the norm. More important, the focus on gender is because it is gender that we are discussing, and because gender has been the one constant in all evolutions of marriage. Ancient Greece, Rome, Shogunate Japan, and other societies that had no stigma against homosexuality (the Athenians, among others, celebrated it as a higher form of love than heterosexuality) never solemnized marriages between two men. Marriage was by definition and by nature between people of opposite sexes.
That is one of the things that makes the comparison to race so unconvincing to those who do not already believe that only a bigot can oppose ssm. The comparison is also ahistoric; there were many times and places where interracial marriage was recognized as marriages, and the period that they were outlawed in parts of the US was, AFAIK, more the exception than the rule when we looked at thousands of years of marriages in cultures across the globe.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 7:04 pmYankev says:
And therein lies the fundamental disagreement — between those to whom personal happiness justifies all, and those who see marriage and for that matter society as about more than just a vehicle for self-fullfillment.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 7:08 pmSenatorX says:
Sonicfrog I am just not convinced people who switch sexual preference or are apparently bi-sexual are just closeted most of their lives. In any case my point would just be that I don’t know that argument of genetic mandate needs to be made. I think the government should be out of the marriage business completely and let free citizens make whatever contracts they want. Barring that I completely understand why SSM advocates consider the current system unjust.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 7:12 pmDilan Esper says:
Good question, they are close in English, but not even remotely close in the original Hebrew.
Just an aside; I don’t agree with yankev very much, but this is fascinating stuff on the Hebrew language.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 7:16 pmesurience says:
No, that’s not where the disagreement is at all.
The disagreement is that you think my personal happiness is somehow a detriment to marriage or society. I don’t think my being married to a person of the same sex would be detrimental to marriage or society at all, why do you?
I never suggested that my personal happiness “justifies all.” I’m asking why I should deny myself personal happiness — what is the benefit to you, or to society, by having me do that?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 7:17 pmSkyler says:
Of course not. Everyone knows that left handed people are sinister. :)
Quote
November 4, 2009, 7:32 pmesurience says:
Nice dodge of a serious question. But, seriously, you said that perverse meant:
Were left-handed people not expected and requested to write with their right-hand? Did they not have their left hand tied behind their back in school to try to force this behavior? And since you brought up ‘sinister’ — doesn’t that fit with your definition of perverse too? (With regard to evil/depraved behavior).
So, seriously, why do you not call left-handed people perverse?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 7:41 pmyankee says:
And until very recently in this country rape was by definition and by nature the carnal knowledge by a man of a woman not his wife without her effective consent. This definition was changed only at the behest of feminist activists, and only within the last half-century. In my own lifetime I can remember hearing people express bafflement when presented with the idea of marital rape, saying it was a contradiction in terms.
I’m also confused as to why we should have any interest in modeling our family law on the practices of ancient Rome or Shogunate Japan.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 7:47 pmSonicfrog says:
Rice et al 1999 does contain useful criticisms of some of the studies, but focuses mainly on Hammer, which reported the isolation of a single “gay gene”. Yet genetics is still very much on the table when trying to determine the cause of “gayness”.
Genetic models of homosexuality: generating testable
predictions
Sergey Gavrilets and William R Rice
Proc. R. Soc. B 2006 273, 3031–3038
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3684
In other words, there is no single gene, but a combination that contributes, along with environmental factors.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:00 pmzuch says:
PersonFromPorlock:
We had that from Dubya (arresting or kicking out people for T-shirts), but we seem to have survived. Now you can be packing heat outside Obama events, complete with signs saying that blood must be shed as well.... So things are looking up, eh?
Cheers,
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:01 pmSonicfrog says:
On the other hand, I just discovered.... Disco music makes mice gay! Well, there you go.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:03 pmSonicfrog says:
I also can’t be sure, as I’m not that person. But the odds are more than likely. The Good reverend Teddy Haggard would be the obvious example. I personally know one person who became very religious to try and escape his homosexual feeling. It didn’t work for him either. He was back out after ten years.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:09 pmzuch says:
esurience:
Worse. They’re sinister.
Cheers,
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:09 pmAlexia says:
THere really should be a law that keeps special interest groups from introducing the same legislation year after year. Make 10 years pass in between or something — give the people a break. No means no.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:13 pmFGH says:
In polls and votes, an overwhelming majority of people believe that couples should have the freedom to live their lives as they will, but they do reject the idea demanded by some gays that rhetoric be employed to suggest not an equality, which everyone is for, but an identity, which is something else altogether. This, at the crux, is what the debate is all about for most and explains the voting behavior that we continue to see among all demographic groups. Dale Carpenter is no doubt on solid ground when he predicts that given contemporary political forces, with repeated attempts, advocates of rhetorical identity will achieve their goal. But he is mistaken if he thinks that will be the end of it. Reality is the final arbiter. If the arrogation of the word “marriage” should occur, new words and phrases will appear in the lexicon to describe that which is inherently different and distinctive.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:18 pmG.R. Mead says:
So, the point is ...
... And yet...
So, if I have this correctly, it is an “odd focus” except that it is, in fact, the very point?
Boys playing at marriage with each other, or girls playing at marriage with each other, is not about making people spouses in the bonds of matrimony, but about establishing OTHER BONDS — making “better citizens,” i.e. — binding thoughts that never ever entertain the visceral idea that boy-boy or girl-girl pairs might be “icky?” Even those that decide to raise someone else’s progeny?
And making sure that people do not think “icky” things is more important than actual marriages (and the families they naturally generate that predated and form the basis of the civil society in which people even care about niceties like what might or might not be thought of as “icky”) might survive and thrive? Biologically speaking, how is this all anything other than a great, grand cuckoo’s nest?
The point is not even primarily moral, but sensible. It makes no sense — biologically, sociologically, historically (dare I say, logically). It isn’t even bad, so much as it is simply incomprehensibly incoherent. The triumph of will over sense has a markedly poor track record...
Unless the first things are right — the second things will all go wrong ...
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:38 pmesurience says:
You can’t have equality by giving some people the identity of “2nd-class citizen.” We’re only supposed to have one class of citizenship in this country. You are not entitled to special, privileged, legally enshrined status because you happen to be a heterosexual.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:40 pmscattergood says:
Thank you for making my point.
You feel you have no control, but there is no evidence to this point other than your feelings.
And no, as I said, put whatever you want where ever you want, so how exactly am I suggesting that you should deny yourself happiness? But don’t make me laud and support the fact that you have made that decision to put whatever you want where ever you want.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:40 pmesurience says:
Wait a second. This is not Dale’s position, it’s yours. You want to take away the existing marriages of same-sex couples, so that people (adults, kids, whoever), will not have to think about “icky” (in your view) things (namely that there are gay people in the world, and sometimes two of them fall in love).
You’re the one who thinks this is more important than people’s actual marriages.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:46 pmdeathsinger says:
Oh Randy,
If only. ALL of the gay man I have met in my life have been lousy members of society. Most of them petty criminals. While in the abstract I agree with you, the reality is that I have never met a gay man that I would willingly associate with. In my professional career, I thankfully have never had to deal with a gay man (I’ll be 42 in a few weeks).
Yes. Why in the world should we celebrate it? Is it better than white or asian history? (I nearly failed that semester of American History since I refused to participate in racial history. TR was right, hyphenated “Americans” is BS.)
As to the “eventually it will happen.” Fine, I don’t intend to live forever. What happens after I die isn’t really any of my business.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:54 pmanonymous says:
The example I gave is the perceived utility of divorce by someone (such as myself) who thinks marriage should be held in the highest regard; it was not meant to reflect society’s view of it.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:55 pmesurience says:
I haven’t made any decision to “put whatever [I] want where ever [I] want.” I did make a decision, when I was 15, to accept the fact that I had romantic and sexual feelings towards members of the same sex — feelings that I had noticed since I was 12 or 13 (when I had my first crush on a boy named Johnny).
I can’t make you “laud and support” this, but I do demand to be treated equally under the law. Furthermore, I cannot demand, but I do request, that you examine whatever prejudices you have that cause you to view the loving relationships that I’m capable of having (meaning a same-sex relationships), as being characteristically inferior to the loving relationships that you’re capable of having.
I’m just a guy trying to find happiness in this life like any other person. For most people, part of that happiness includes pursuing romantic relationships. For gay people, that means with someone of the same sex. Why do you insist on treating me so differently because of that? Why does it matter to you?
Why do you need your relationship to have a special status that you deny to me?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:01 pmSonicfrog says:
Wow! Remind me not to go to your hairdresser!
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:02 pmanonymous says:
I this may be a matter of semantics. Wikipedia, the source of knowledge, says it is “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.” If you believe that “discrimination against homosexuality” includes not allowing others than one man and one woman to marry, than by definition, anyone who opposes gay marriage would be homophobic. I tend to focus on the “irrational fear of, aversion to” part of the definition, but also believe that many people (even many Mormons) can oppose gay marriage without treating gays and lesbians differently. Just asserting that the Mormon Church is homophobic doesn’t mean that (1) the statement is true or (2) that every member of that Church is homophobic.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:07 pmdeathsinger says:
Sonicfrog,
You may not go to my hairdresser. It is a Phillips cordless shaver with a hair rake on it. I bought it after my barber died. He was a Marine, married with 4 kids. Chances he was gay, something approaching zero.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:11 pmMartha says:
I’m baffled by the sturm and drang over what to tell the kids. A recent conversation with my 5yo:
Child: Are Mary and Heather both your cousins?
Me: Sort of. Mary is my cousin and Heather is married to her.
Child: But they are both women. Why would two women get married?
Me: Because they love each other.
The conversation wasn’t hard or traumatic or anything. If my child turns out to be gay, I don’t think it’ll be because of Mary and Heather, whether or not their marriage is government-approved or just church-approved. But if I wanted to teach that gay marriage was immoral, I could have done that just as easily.
Either way, there would lots of other people who don’t agree with me. So? If I couldn’t handle that, I shouldn’t be a parent.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:16 pmdeathsinger says:
Martha,
You are baffled why someone whose religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin doesn’t want to have that conversation with their 5 year old? Really?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:25 pmptt says:
It must be hell being a parent.
You have to explain divorce, remarriage, women priests, etc. It must get tiring.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:30 pmSonicfrog says:
OK.
I know / have known gay friends who had kids.
I know / have known many gay friends who were once married to the opposite sex.
I guess I shouldn’t tell you about the Super Bowl party I went to in San Clemente in 1994. San Clemente is just north of the Marine base Camp Pendleton. The local makes perfect sense as the party was hosted by, and attended by mostly gay marines. I was one of the few, one of the proud civilians to have been in attendance. Even though the Chargers lost, God, that was a GREAT PARTY!
I’m not accusing you hairdresser of being gay,so don’t freak. But none of the qualifiers you use to describe him disqualify him from being gay. And if he were, I doubt he would have ever told you. In fact, chances are, you almost certainly went to school with someone, or maybe even now associate with someone who was / is hiding the fact that he or she is gay. We’re kind of a secret society us gays.
BTW — Gay like sports too.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:50 pmMark Field says:
The anti-abortion folks wouldn’t like that rule very much. Nor the creationists.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:11 pmyankee says:
My religion teaches that homosexuality is not a sin, so I don’t want to have to talk with my 5 year-old about why Mary and Heather can’t get married because there are people with an irrational hatred of gay people, etc. What’s so much better about your religion that we should bend over backwards to prevent you from having difficult conversations with your children, but my desire avoid difficult conversations with mine counts for nothing?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:15 pmSkyler says:
I don’t think the people have voted on abortion. It seems to me to have been pretty much decided by fiat.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:31 pmscattergood says:
Thank you again for making my point.
Of course you have made the decision to put whatever you want where ever you want. You had same sex urges as an adolescent, you determined that those urges are natural / good / wholly determinisitic of your behavior. You then acted on those urges. Bully for you.
Many people have sexual urges in adolescence that they don’t act on or don’t determine are natural / good / wholly deterministic of their behavior. Some have same sex urges, some have others.
And of course you can MAKE me laud and support your decisions. It is called the coercive power of the government. If I employed people and offered benefits to heterosexual marriages, I would then be forced to provide those benefits to SSM. That’s called support. If I sent my kids to a public school that wanted to read from ‘Billy and his two Dad’s’ and I couldn’t pull him out, that’s called lauding.
If you want to be loving with another man, go at it. It is by definition different to a hetersexual union for a variety of reasons. Claiming a turtle is a frog doesn’t make it so. Whether that difference makes it inferior or superior is a matter of perspective. Your point here is reinforcing the fact that it isn’t rights that the SSM people seek but recognition.
As for being treated equally under the law, I argue that all men can marry women only and all women can marry men only is treating all men and all women equally. You argue that by doing so the law is discriminating against you because of your ‘deterministic factors of homosexuality’. Unfortunately for you that is completely made up. You are foisting a fraud upon the rest of society.
The arguement between us isn’t about equal rights or civil rights. It is about whether homosexual behavior is deterministic. It isn’t. You can claim it is, you can pray it is, you can hope it is. But for 20+ years of research has shown that it isn’t.
But let’s be clear. I have no desire to stop people from doing things to each other should they want to.
Think about this. Would you be willing to trade SSM for the rights of local communities to teach what they want about homosexuality in the schools? The fact is that most pro-SSM people won’t, and that says a lot about how much false information, indoctrination, and intellectual fraud is necessary to promote SSM.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:33 pmAWT says:
Wow, tough crowd. Maybe it’s time for Maggie Gallagher to guest blog again...
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:41 pmCornellian says:
You are baffled why someone whose religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin doesn’t want to have that conversation with their 5 year old? Really?
I’m not baffled by that — people don’t want to talk about anything serious with a five year old. I’m baffled by people who think that’s a reason why gay people should be denied the benefits of civil marriage.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:46 pmRandy says:
Yankev: “Ancient Greece, Rome, Shogunate Japan, and other societies that had no stigma against homosexuality (the Athenians, among others, celebrated it as a higher form of love than heterosexuality) never solemnized marriages between two men. ”
Actually, not true. Emperor Hadrian married his male lover Antinous in a three day ceremony in Rome. When Antinous died, he had him declared a god, named a city after him, and had thousands of busts made of his head. Apparently, he was quite the hotty.
Deathsinger: “Why in the world should we celebrate it? Is it better than white or asian history?”
Because blacks want it. And if you want an asian history month, or a white history month, there is nothing stopping you from doing so. In fact, we do, actually — in Washington, we have the Cherry Blossom parade each year that celebrates Japanese culture and history. We have Columbus day and St. Patrick’s day, which both celebrate white men of the past. Got a problem with those? Then I know some tough Italians and Irish who will happy beat you to a pulp to teach you some respect!
And year after year, this gay man is *forced*, against his will, mind you, to celebrate the culture and accomplishments of the Japanese, the Irish, the Italians. We have a Greek festival in Washington, too. Gawd! It’s unbearable — all these groups demanding that I respect and accept them! And we all know those Japs are evil — we fought them in the war, and they aren’t Christians! I try to teach my kids good morals, that they should hate anyone who doesn’t share their religion, but it’s just so hard to do that when they go to school with kids who have Japanese parents. I’m dumbfounded as to what sort of conservation I should have with my kids. They might start turning Japanese!
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:53 pmdeathsinger says:
Randy, I don’t have a problem with people having festivals. I object to schools taking a month and dedicating it to black history.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:01 pmRandy says:
scattergood: “. You can claim it is, you can pray it is, you can hope it is. But for 20+ years of research has shown that it isn’t.”
You don’t need 20 years of research. You only need a dick. If your dick gets hard when you look at pictures of hot naked women, you are straight. If your dick gets hard when you look at picutres of hot naked men, you are gay. Your dick doesn’t lie, and I’ve never met a man who can control whether his dick gets hard.
My dick only gets hard for men, never for women. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. If your dick only gets hard for women, good for you! But don’t pretend that you have a choice over the matter, and don’t lecture us on whether sexual orientaiton is innate or not. It isn’t — not one person on this planet can control whom he or she is attracted to.
Don’t believe me? Then try this: get on the internet and look up naked photos of the hottest guys you can find. If you aren’t hard, then you have nothing to worry about.
” Would you be willing to trade SSM for the rights of local communities to teach what they want about homosexuality in the schools? The fact is that most pro-SSM people won’t, and that says a lot about how much false information, indoctrination, and intellectual fraud is necessary to promote SSM.”
Oh please. Cut the false posturing and straw men. The Attorney General of the state of Maine declared that what schools teach in Maine is wholly the decision of local school boards, an annoucement that is so banal it’s hardly worth mentioning. But it was required because of the lies that the anti-gay crowd kept telling. Apparently, you bought into it. So because all gays agree that the rights of local communities to teach what they want about homosexuality is in tact, will you then retract your slander about how we all promote false information, indoctrination and intellectual fraud?
I
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:03 pmRandy says:
Scattergood: “But for 20+ years of research has shown that it isn’t.”
You don’t need twenty years. You just need a dick. If you have one, you know that you have no control over when it gets hard. But you also know that it gets hard when you see something that sexually arouses you, and you know it won’t get hard if you see something that doesn’t sexually arouse you.
For me, my dick only gets hard when I see guys I’m attracted to. I’ve never gotten hard for any women, not even Princess Diana! (And she was definately the hottest women I’ve ever seen).
Saying that being gay is a choice is like saying that you can control when your dick gets hard. You can’t, and that’s why being gay or straight isn’t a choice. And you can’t change that. Dont’ believe me? Just try staring at a really hot man, like Brad Pitt, and see if you can make your dick hard. Betcha you can’t.
“Would you be willing to trade SSM for the rights of local communities to teach what they want about homosexuality in the schools? The fact is that most pro-SSM people won’t, and that says a lot about how much false information, indoctrination, and intellectual fraud is necessary to promote SSM.”
please cut the self-pitying crap. The ATtorney General for the State of Maine issued a statement that all schools curricula are determined by local school boards, and that it has nothing to do with SSM. This banality had to be said because of the lies of the anti-gay crowd, which you have apparently bought into.
So no, every gay person is willing to trade the rights of local communities to decide what they teach in order to get SSM, precisely because there is nothing to really trade. So now that you know this, are you willing to retract your statement that we gays just engage in “false information, indoctrination, and intellectual fraud” to promote SSM?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:10 pmRandy says:
deathsinger: “andy, I don’t have a problem with people having festivals.”
no, you just have a problem with gays having festivals. But I guess there is a certain logic in your thinking. “Gays do not equal people, so I’m okay with *people* having festivals.” Cause, you know, all gays are just evil thieves.
When I was young, many years ago, that was pretty much the thinking about blacks. Sure, there were a few good ones in the bunch, but most of them were lazy, living off welfare, can’t be trusted. Why would any white person even think of marrying one? There oughta be a law!
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:18 pmBrendan Murphy says:
And why shouldn’t they be gay friendly? Allowing gays to have equal rights simply means less government intrusion into the lives of private citizens.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:23 pmesurience says:
That’s not how I would phrase things. But, just curious, would you say, with regard to your opposite-sex urges that you: “made the decision to put whatever you want where ever you want.”
Did you? If the answer is ‘no’ — then why are you accusing me of that?
No, the argument really isn’t about that. Gay people do, in fact, exist. What we’re arguing about is whether or not the government can discriminate against gay people only for the purpose of showing disapproval of homosexuality (which is what all these arguments come down to...)
You would, but if you have a problem with that, your problem is with anti-discrimination laws, not marriage equality. Do you agree with anti-discrimination laws on the basis of race, religion, etc? Do you think an employer should be able to deny benefits to inter-faith marriages or inter-racial marriages or whatever kind of marriage they happen to have a distaste for?
What is your objection to your son learning that some students, perhaps even in his class, are being raised by two dads? Why should families only similar to your own be featured in school books?
What’s so special about homosexuality that local communities should be able to decide what they teach on that topic and that topic only? Why not allow local communities to decide the entire curriculum, and have no state/federal standards? Not saying I’m in favor of doing that, just wondering where you stand.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:25 pmvic says:
I think this is complete BS straw man argument with both sides chasing a symbol, the purpose eventually being a mechanism to rile up the base.
I personally think that society offers certain rights and priviledges ( contractually ? pl forgive — I am a non lawyer)to people in a long term monogamous( ?) relationship. There is no reason why these should not be afforded to all citizens. The meat is in the ” rights” NOT in what name you give these rights. So if gay citizens got all the rights and protection afforded to other citizens, would it matter whether you call it marriage, gayrriage or civil union.
why do I think it is BS: because it has degenerated into ( both sides ) a ” stick my finger in your nose” game of one upmanship. The gay community would, I think gain a lot more traction– at least in the present circumstance by focusing on REAL rights and protection as opposed to going for meaningless symbols that get all kinds of people riled up and angry.
The abortion debate is a similar peice of BS. (My own position: anti abortion completely in my own life, but unwilling to force my viewpoints on others.) In any event, political power changes from the pro to ant abortion party and vice versa. But the status quo remains the same. Reason: 1. any meaningful change either way will provoke bloodbath on the steets where morons on both sides will commit murder and mayhem.and 2. it will deprive our political class of an opiate to delude joe/joan schmuck from the real issue facing him and how he/she is being taken for a royal ride by the politicians.
just my 2 cents!
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:28 pmdeathsinger says:
yankee,
You assume too much. I am not religious.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:30 pmRandy says:
deathsinger: “You are baffled why someone whose religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin doesn’t want to have that conversation with their 5 year old? Really?”
Because out of the thousands of things that a parent needs to teach a 5 year old, teaching them to hate gays is the Most Important Teaching of Them All. Sure, you want to teach them to play catch, fold their clothes, eat with a fork, don’t use dirty words, and say thank you. But all that pales in comparison to teaching that that homos are immoral, so stay away from them!
and if your teenaged daughter says that she is going shopping with her best friend who is gay, make sure you ground her! She needs to know what is moral and what is immoral. And shopping with a gay guy is doubly immoral.
And if it turns out that your own kid is gay, he then he needs to learn how to hide it from his parents, and learn to hate himself, possibly to the point of suicide, and then of course prepare himself for the inevitable disowning that will come once he tells you. It’s for his own good, afterall.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:33 pmbadlaw says:
People act like the only apt comparison is interracial marriage (which was totally like the way people view marriage today, except with different races), but that’s not true. Why don’t people ever analogize our legal history with polygamy? (Besides the fact that it’s not as accepted as intermarriage)
Not only is there standing SCOTUS precedence outlawing polygamy (or rather, stating that states have the right to criminalize it), but there is federal precedence as well with Reynolds v. US and the now-repealed Edmunds-Tucker Act.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:37 pmMark Field says:
Restrictions on abortion get proposed in the states all the time. Sometimes complete bans get proposed.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:39 pmdeathsinger says:
Randy,
Have all the festivals you want. Have a festival tonight, tomorrow and Friday. Really I could care less. Have a festival every day from now to forever. Just don’t add Gay History Month to the calendar and teach it to my kids (or me for that matter).
Your reasoning ability about my logic is abysmal.
Sonicfrog
I would prefer they never did. I NEVER ask. Unfortunately too many have decided to tell me (usually in the opening conversation).
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:39 pmRandy says:
Vic: “So if gay citizens got all the rights and protection afforded to other citizens, would it matter whether you call it marriage, gayrriage or civil union. ”
Gosh! What a great suggestion! Why didn’t we stupid gays ever think of such a wise decision! Why, we could just have all our rights without the word of marriage, just by clicking our heels!
So Vic, let me ask you: Would you be willing to civil unionize with your girlfriend instead of marrying her? After all, the dream of every little princess is to be civil unionized with her prince, right? But it’s enough for us gays. Gee, thanks for the patronizing.
I know you aren’t a lawyer, but try this one on for size: the constitution affords rights to married people, but is silent on any other. So guess what? Civil Unions DON’T give you the same rights! In fact, in state such as Iowa, CT, MA, and VT, gays have the right to marry, but none of the federal benefits. So even with the word “marriage’, we still get less rights than you.
And just to prove my point, Washington state just had a referendum 71 that would allow ALL the same rights at the state level that marriage would allow. “Everything but marriage” is what it is called. According to you, that should be a snap to get. AFterall, its not about a ‘symbol’. It’s about the meat! But guess what? We got it, only by a tight slim majority. About 48% of the people were against what you yourself termed “no reason not to give it.” The religious rightwingers fought it tooth and nail.
Sorry, Vic, but the real world bekons, and it states that a lot of people, including those here on this board, would deny gays any rights at all.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:43 pmRandy says:
deathsinger: ” Just don’t add Gay History Month to the calendar and teach it to my kids (or me for that matter).”
Why not? Because you are afraid that your kids might turn gay? Or because they might learn that history is full of accomplished gay people? Do we really terrify you that much? It’s quite funny, to be honest.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:45 pmdeathsinger says:
Randy,
Do you really think we are teaching our 5 year olds to hate gays? Wow, get a grip. I don’t want to have that conversation at all until they are about 10. Then, the explanation is simple and easy. How they choose to react to people is up to them. I don’t tell my kids who to like and who to dislike (like that works). If they choose not to like people, I fine with that. They won’t be allowed to injure people they don’t like.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:46 pmvic says:
Randy:
this is exactly what i mean, I am all for equal rights for gays, i just think that tactically, at the present junction marriage is unachievable.
But what do you do– you attack me
i guess this is a really winning strategy– piss on your supporters — to the point that they say F*** U
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:49 pmdeathsinger says:
Randy,
Because if their accomplishments are worth teaching the fact they are gay is irrelevant. Sorry if your life is consumed with being gay, but frankly I would prefer to have never known.
You claim Hadrian was gay. I say so what. His accomplishments as Roman Emperor stand on their own. Whether or not he was gay is utterly immaterial. Hadrian was a person. All you seem to care about is his sex life. That you know/care about that isn’t funny. It is sad.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:51 pmvic says:
Randy said:
And just to prove my point, Washington state just had a referendum 71 that would allow ALL the same rights at the state level that marriage would allow. “Everything but marriage” is what it is called. According to you, that should be a snap to get. AFterall, its not about a ‘symbol’. It’s about the meat! But guess what? We got it, only by a tight slim majority. About 48% of the people were against what you yourself termed “no reason not to give it.” The religious rightwingers fought it tooth and nail.
That my friend is just my point.
YOU got it
maine lost 53 to 47 or something
washington won ( i assume (52–48)
so if you shut the f up and tone down the rhetoric, you might just get 2– 3 % to vote the other way and get it
get it!
if you think that you can convince 70 –80 % to your point of view you deserve what you get
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:53 pmdeathsinger says:
Mark,
How many ballot measures have there been on abortion? I can’t think of one in the last 15 years.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:54 pmMichael Ejercito says:
The problem then, is with federal law.
Actually, the earliest time this could have been averted was when the Equal Rights Amendment was up for ratification. If such an amendment were ratified, it would require the same level of scrutiny for gender discrimination as racial discrimination. Under such a level of scrutiny, legal prohibition of same-sex “marriage” would fall. (Laws requiring men, but not women, to register for a possible draft would also fall.)
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:01 amvic says:
randy:
So Vic, let me ask you: Would you be willing to civil unionize with your girlfriend instead of marrying her? After all, the dream of every little princess is to be civil unionized with her prince, right? But it’s enough for us gays. Gee, thanks for the patronizing.
if she were willing to cohabit w me as a civil union– i personally dont give a flying F. the reality is that she likely wont so i will have to marry her.
in the case of a gay couple, if both are willing why should it matter.
At some point of time in your adult life learn to reason with your head, not your other head
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:01 amDave N says:
I am one of those who has a problem with the word “marriage.”
If I lived in Maine, yesterday I would have voted for repeal. If I lived in Washington, I would have voted for the domestic partners bill.
And no, I do not consider myself homophobic. One of my closest friends is openly and proudly gay. I have gay colleagues where I work and I treat them and their partners with the same respect I treat my straight colleagues and their spouses.
Although she has not “come out,” the fact that my sister is almost certainly a lesbian is an irrelevancy. She is, and always will be, my baby sister. If she finds happiness with another woman, God bless both of them.
Call it “civil unions;” call it “domestic partnerships;” call it “striped zebras” for all I care and I am for it. Call a gay union “marriage” and I am not.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:07 amGrover Gardner says:
Have you asked them about it?
One has to wonder where you’ve been meeting gay men.
Seriously, this is utterly, utterly ridiculous. Are you writing from a prison, or what?
Please, please, no! Anything but that...
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:09 amGrover Gardner says:
Why, for God’s sake? You object to your baby sister getting married??
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:11 amGrover Gardner says:
Then what’s your problem with gays getting married?
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:14 amGrover Gardner says:
But most of the gay men you’ve met have been petty criminals. Wouldn’t this cast a smidgen of doubt on Hadrian’s accomplishments?
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:17 amDave N says:
Grover Gardner,
As I said twice in my post, I object to changing the definition of “marriage” to include same-sex couples. If my sister and some future partner planned a wedding and insisted on calling it a marriage, I would attend and celebrate their happiness.
I would bite my tongue at my objection to the use of the term “marriage” because I am a civil kind of guy and I see no reason to damage a close relationship over the semantic differences — but even so, I doubt it would change my view on use of the word “marriage.”
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:21 amMark says:
Sonicfrog’s reference to twin studies should not go unchallenged. He claims that “study after study after study” shows that identical twin pairs for which one is gay, the other is gay more than 50% of the time. In fact only one early study with self-selected volunteers through advertisements in gay and lesbian publications (Bailey 1991) had such high numbers (52%). More recent, population-based studies show lower figures. A study of Australian twins (Bailey et al 2000) showed a concordance rate of 45%, while Langstom’s 2008 study of Swedish twins had a 34% to 39% concordance rate for men and Santtila’s 2008 study of Finnish twins had a 37.4% male concordance rate. Because of sampling size issues, both Bailey and Langstrom acknowledge the possibility of large margins of error, such that the genetic influence could be zero. As importantly, estimates of heritability for most human traits that have been measured are in the 40% to 60% range. In short, the genetic influence on sexual orientation, although real, is fundamentally no stronger than its influence on alcoholism, tobacco addiction, antisocial behavior, or intelligence.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:24 amptt says:
unchallenged
Yeah, when you can’t actually engage in challenge, dazzle ‘em with bs.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:27 amzuch says:
deathsinger:
Which explains why they hang around with you? Maybe it’s the company they keep....
Cheers,
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:36 amArthurKirkland says:
Perhaps this point is more important than you think to those who like bigotry and organized religion. If a child is not indoctrinated concerning bigotry and organized religion before the synapses start firing with adult proficiency, that person is likely to be lost to bigotry and organized religion.
I hope those ‘Maggie Gallagher, guest-blogger’ references are a running joke that began before I arrived at the Conspiracy.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:41 amzuch says:
deathsinger:
I would prefer they never did. I NEVER ask. Unfortunately too many have decided to tell me (usually in the opening conversation).
Hmmm. Either there’s a lot of people that need their Gaydars recalibrated ... or ....
;-)
Cheers,
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:49 amGrover Gardner says:
Why? Seriously–why can’t your sister get “married”? What would it cost you? Would it cost you one tiny iota of anything to allow your sister to call her committed, formalized relationship a marriage?
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:50 amesurience says:
Hmm, and why exactly did you choose these comparisons? Let’s take tabacco addiction. So you seem to be saying that if one sibling, in a twin pair, is pre-disposed to tabacco addiction, that the other twin would be in the 40–60% range of also being pre-disposed to tobacco addiction.
And you don’t deny that a genetic influence on sexual orientation exists. So, you’re saying that there is a 40–60% chance that if one twin is gay, the other will be gay as well.
Ok... so, I’m just confused as to the point of your post. What does this have to do with challenging Sonicfrog’s reference to twin studies? You seem to be agreeing with it.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:51 amG.R. Mead says:
Well, now that is why I quoted him.
No, you have it wrong — and have simply adopted his error in turn. But you see, I don’t find them icky, or resent their love for one another — though I would much prefer that they did their ancestors a favor and make good on the long investment in their genes and passed them on directly in the way that nature has commanded, there are reasons why they serve a related purpose indirectly, but not by simply making pretense to the forms of actual marriage. I find them ordinary and unexceptional, otherwise.
My point is that it is the boy-boy and girl-girl pairs that DEMAND under pain of prosecution — that no one else see them as “icky.” At the end of the day in any legal scheme of enforcement they are insisting that every else pretend otherwise or accept that men (or women) with guns (or I suppose, bisexual/transexual/hermaphroditic/nullo/eunuch or castrati — with guns) will come and threaten or take their property or liberty. A gun does not make a boat a bird, and if the guy holding the gun insists on everyone else calling a boat a bird, one may humor him until he lays the gun aside, and then more seriously question whether his love of birds has clouded his rational judgment. One doesn’t have to love theater to see this all as a cruel farce.
The question they refuse to ask themselves is whether there is a reason for the “ick factor” that is in fact rational and a sociobiological understanding of why it exists, will not go away and makes this whole sturm and drang effort pointless and idiotic.
I have no illusions about the endless permutations of fruitless forms of human sexual imagination (nor any lack of vivid images in mind from personal witness (though not participation, I might add) — have you been to Thailand in the late eighties, perchance?) My point is matter of practical fact and “natural” law if you will, but, fundamentally an irreducible one, regardless of ones theology (or non-ology, for that matter.)
There are in fact sociobiological reasons for the recurrence of certain things nonetheless deemed “sins” in various traditions (the consistency of which across many cultural divides ought to given any rational observer pause). Such forms of deviance (in the statistical sense) aren’t my among particular sins, (though I have many, the simultaneous recurrence and advisability of social prohibition against I could also draw sociobiological grounds for). But that just means that I assert that the preferred sin/sociobiological deviance/fetish (pick your terms) of any passing plurality in government should not be a privileged status obligatory on the entirety of a rational society. Unless it is fundamental to the continuation of such society.
But the hard irreducible fact remains that one and only one combination of our prodigiously inventive sexual imagining is actually and naturally fruitful — as in, forms a self-replicating society that will perdure to need the law you craft for it. Society, biology, evolution, nature — they are are only fundamentally concerned with the latter one — the productive pair. Law, if it were rationally responsive to realities of the world — instead of the fruitless frenetic desires of people who will have no personal contribution to the future population of the society that law will govern, would likewise privilege the one fruitful permutation of our endless sexual imagining over the others.
Poke what you please, and that is between you and your God or nonbeing of choice, but the facts are the facts, and nature does not care about mine or your opinions or our respective desires that do not create heirs to carry them on and build upon them.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:53 amGrover Gardner says:
So, let’s take a tally. We let people drink, smoke, live by themselves and pursue their own educations. But get married? Fuggedaboudit.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 1:00 amSonicfrog says:
Really??? How does that happen? Are you totally hot.. or queeny or something? Are you a priest and spend a lot of time in the confessional??? (I can joke about that cause I was raised catholic). Do you work in the Castro, or maybe Hillcrest in San Diego???? As the Gov asked, “One has to wonder where you’ve been meeting gay men”.
All joking aside. I used to work with a guy who was very narcissistic, very into himself. A massive health food nut. Used to bring all his mysterious organic miracle cures to work and show them off. He worked out a lot and was pretty well toned. We dubbed him “Organicman”. One day, he was going on and on and on about how gay guys ALWAYS hit on him at the gym, and other places too. In his version of life ALL gay men were attracted to him. Tommy, one of the jokesters at work piped up and said “Well, Mike is gay, and he’s not attracted to you”. This gets really freaky because “Organicman” starts asking me why I don’t find him attractive. I just tell him I don’t know, I just don’t. He starts listing reasons why I might not like him, and asks if it’s because his arms are too hairy. I tell him no, but he fixates on that. He just can’t believe that I’m not attracted to him.
Now it gets really weird. The next day, he comes to work... and has trimmed his arm hair. Now, I have no reason to believe he was gay, but still, he was just absolutely obsessed with the notion of gay people liking him. Not in the normal gay way that gay people come on to gay people. Like I say. It was kinda freaky.
For some reason, in the few bits of details you’ve given about your life, in some way, you remind me of him.
PS. The really funny thing about this incident, was that I was not out at work, and had never told anyone that I was gay. I was scared shitless of being hounded or worse, shunned. I’m not a queen by any measure; I work on cars, play guitar, and have absolutely no fashion sense what-so-ever. I’m pretty much a failure as a homosexual. There was at least three straight people at work who were “gayer” than I. Nobody knew. Tommy just picked me for the joke because I was standing right there and he figured I’d go along with it. It was only a couple days later that one of the guys at work realized and asked “Are you really gay?” I told the truth. A couple of guys were a little teppid about it, but nothing really changed.
And that, my friends, is how I ended up coming out of the closet at work.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 1:06 amGrover Gardner says:
But, alas, it doesn’t. The commitment to having children is not a prerequisite for a marriage license–not here, not now, not anywhere, not ever.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 1:06 amscattergood says:
Sounds like a great justification to excuse rape and pedophelia. Nice.
“But officer, my dick got hard and I have no control!”
Again, thanks for making my point. People’s dicks get hard all the time without them jumping on what made them hard.
The AG can say whatever he wants, but as the entire notion of SSM proves, things change. There is no guarantee that in 10 years or 20 years the restrictions he says exist will exist. Just as 10 or 20 years ago, SSM wasn’t even a discussion.
And no, I am not willing to retract my statement. It is pretty clear that you have made up a set of facts to justify your behavior to yourself. That others accept your mendacious claims doesn’t make them any less false. When the facts aren’t on your side, the SSM folks will just a) continue to make stuff up, and b) villify those who point this out.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 1:12 amSonicfrog says:
Nice way to completely avoid the point Randy was trying to make, and, nice way to equate homosexuals with rapists and pedophiles. At least you’re honest about your preconceived notions of gay people. Can’t help but feel pity for you really.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 1:25 amesurience says:
But... again, you’re the one arguing with nature, not me. I’m 100% naturally made. My attraction to members of the same-sex is 100% natural, because I’m gay. That’s how gay people work. And almost all my genes will survive just fine, I have a heterosexual brother.
Not all heterosexual pairings are naturally fruitful. (Infertility for whatever reason, including age). Do you believe they should be denied marriage? Should marriages have an expiration date on them, after the children are over the age of 18 — after all, the purpose of marriage would have been completely served by that point, right? Should people who get married sign a statement of intent that they intend to produce children?
Society is only concerned with people that can and will reproduce? That’s what you just said. Are you sure?
Should we just kill everyone else, since we’re not “fundamentally concerned” with them? If we shouldn’t kill them, what, if anything, do we owe to members of society that cannot, or choose not, to reproduce? Do we not owe these members of society equality under the law?
But marriage is not reserved only for people who, have or intend to have, or are capable of having, children. And we’ve recognized in our laws that marriages need not have children in order to be of benefit to society. Many of the legal protections and obligations surrounding marriage are about two people taking care of each other, whether they have kids or not. (Hospital visitation, sick leave to take care of a spouse, inheritance, community property, power of attorney, immigration issues, etc...) For two people to enter into a commitment to take care of one another, is to lift a burden off of society which otherwise might get stuck with it.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 1:25 amscattergood says:
Are you really trying to say that a choice which is necessary for the continuation of life, the sustainment of society, and the propagation of the human race is exactly the same as one that does none of those things? Are you really trying to say that a choice that is uniformly noramative (in the scientific sense) is the same as one that is not?
No, gay people don’t exist. There are people who engage in homosexual behavior, there are people who engage in bisexual behavior. But there is no deterministic cause for homosexual behavior and thus ‘gay people’ are a self created class. That is where we differ.
And again, if you want to be a member of this self created class, great, go for it. Live it up, enjoy it all you want. But don’t use the coercive power of the government to support, laud, and sanction your activities.
Again, this is exactly my point. We as a society have specifically dilenated race and religious membership as a protected groups not be discriminated against. Thus your examples are moot. In EVERY election creating that for people who enage in homosexual behavior it has been defeated.
Since you don’t know what my family is like, your point is a bit off the mark.
I would lean more that way, as I think states should have more autonomy than they have today. However, I would wager that if individual communities were freed from discimination restrictions to discuss homosexuality, over time the SSM forces would lose sway in 20 years or so.
It is clear that only throught the dissemination of clearly false information that we have even reached this point.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 1:30 amGrover Gardner says:
Ergo, only straight people should be allowed to jump on what makes them hard. Anything else is akin to rape and pedophelia.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 1:31 amesurience says:
You’re confusing what is natural with what is moral. There probably are rapists out there with a compulsion to rape that they cannot control. That doesn’t mean that rape is moral. We need to lock them up for the good of society. It’s unfortunate that they can’t control themselves, but we can’t let them walk around raping people, can we?
On the other hand, what’s morally wrong with homosexuality? I’ve asked you several times, and you haven’t responded, why you seem to insist that I should deny myself love and intimacy (and therefore, happiness and self-fulfillment)? Most people do want love and intimacy in their lives, and I’m no different. But, I’m gay, so I can only get that from another guy. Why should I deny myself that? What harm does it cause? Are you really comparing a consensual and loving relationship between two adult males to rape?
Quote
November 5, 2009, 1:34 amG.R. Mead says:
“Let” them? We can’t stop them — not for much trying, I should say, at various times and places– though we have pretended otherwise. Why? Because those activities can be done in secret. Romeo and Juliet aside, you can’t “be married” in the sense at issue without public approbation and social sanction . Which is exactly their point, and it is unreasonable for them to insist.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 1:35 amGrover Gardner says:
You didn’t answer his question. Did you choose?
Quote
November 5, 2009, 1:36 amKen Arromdee says:
At this point, I’d imagine they’re concerned about slippery slope problems.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 1:40 amGrover Gardner says:
Indeed.
More unreasonable than to insist on being allowed to smoke, drink, live alone or educate yourself?
Quote
November 5, 2009, 1:43 amG.R. Mead says:
And so you rightly explain a reason that has been found supportable in evolutionary terms for the continued recurrence of your statistically outlier sexual type in sexual pair ordering. But that still does not justify, rationally, making an outlier type fit a standard rule that is specifically fitted to a purpose of a differently ordered sexual type — and the vastly more numerous one.
Oh, do we now rue the day when they ceased teaching logic in schools and the difference between necessary cause and sufficient cause.
It is not a question of actual or even “potential” fertility (whatever that means). A rightly ordered pair is a necessary condition to be fruitful — but only an actually fruitful pair is sufficient to form a perduring society.
Since we do not force females to submit to involuntary childbearing (which would be sufficient, though brutal and cruel), then as a matter of policy we can ONLY enforce and promote the necessary condition — the right ordering of the pairs — not the sufficient condition of enforcing fertility — for the interests of society in continuing its coherent existence. Whether or not any given ordered pair of the type that IS fruitful does or does not bear fruit, does not change the REASON for the type-ordering of that pair that creates the necessary condition for the result the policy intends to protect or promote.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 1:52 amSonicfrog says:
By this gem of logic, there is not deterministic cause for heterosexuality, thus ‘straight people’ are a self created class. That is where we differ.
Also, there is not deterministic cause for myopic people, thus ‘near sighted people’ are a self created class.
There is not deterministic cause for autism, thus ‘autistic people’ are a self created class.
There is not deterministic cause for genius, thus ‘smart people’ are a self created class.
And finally, for those of us who have tried to teach music, or are one of those who just don’t have musical abilities, who realize they are not ever going to be a Mozart:
There is not deterministic cause for musical talent, thus ‘musical geniuses’ are a self created class.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 1:57 amG.R. Mead says:
Those can be private and while it is foolish and wrong, IMO, to try to stop them going on in public or private, it is legitimate as a matter of PUBLIC policy, all things being equal, to say whether and if or under what conditions some harms might be avoided by prohibiting them if done in public.
Marriage is an intensely intimate personal relationship which has indissoluble and intensely public character. Smoking might or might not be regulated, because it is nearly irrelevant to society’s continuation. Marriage must be regulated AND its fundamental purpose protected because it is indispensable.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 2:01 amG.R. Mead says:
Those can be private and while it is foolish and wrong, IMO, to try to stop them going on in public or private, it is legitimate as a matter of PUBLIC policy, all things being equal, to say whether and if or under what conditions some harms might be avoided by prohibiting them if done in public.
Marriage is an intensely intimate personal relationship which has indissoluble and intensely public character. Smoking might or might not be regulated, because it is nearly irrelevant to society’s continuation. Marriage must be regulated AND its fundamental purpose protected because it is indispensable.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 2:06 amGrover Gardner says:
But no one is trying to prevent fertile people from marrying.
I agree. I’m not seeing the part where gay people getting married disrupts the indispensable nature of marriage.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 2:15 amG.R. Mead says:
Yes, many gems here. The deterministic cause for BOTH straight people and gay people — is straight people doing what makes them straight. Gay people doing what makes them gay are not a deterministic cause for any kind of people.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 2:16 amesurience says:
What is the purpose of that necessary condition though? You say the purpose is to promote procreation. Ok... but why choose that condition specifically? There are other necessary conditions that you could choose, which would further your cause. Such as:
1) Requiring that a marriage not be entered into if a woman is over the age of menopause
2) Requiring a signed statement saying that a couple is not aware of any fertility issues they may have
3) Requiring that a couple sign a statement of intent to produce children by a certain date — if this requirement is not fulfilled, the marriage should be dissolved.
I know you think you responded to point (3) by talking about forced childbearing. But I’m not suggesting forced child bearing. I’m saying that if there’s no purpose to a marriage outside of procreation, then a couple who isn’t willing to state their intent to produce children shouldn’t get married. And there’s no reason not to enforce that by putting an expiration date on the marriage.
The point of all this is that you’re arbitrarily choosing your necessary condition, which essentially boils down to “needs to be a man and a woman” — but this condition is not the best you could choose for you stated _goal_, which is to encourage procreation. The only reason you’re choosing this condition is because it’s the only one that excludes all homosexuals and no heterosexuals. But, again, it doesn’t advance what you say your actual goal is as effectively as it could (encouraging procreation).
You are unwilling to bar any heterosexuals from the institution of marriage, even if they don’t advance your stated goal of procreation, but you’re willing to exclude all homosexuals from the institution. It’s a double-standard no matter how you try to wrap it up.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 2:16 amesurience says:
Congratulations on being straight! Do you want an award for that?
Quote
November 5, 2009, 2:23 amGrover Gardner says:
That’s arguable. But even saying it’s true, so what?
Quote
November 5, 2009, 2:24 amG.R. Mead says:
Because it isn’t marriage — any more than a horse is a cow by calling it a cow — if you want milk. But the fact you CAN’t see that is a symptom of the deep weakening of marriage as an institution, and that we ignore at our peril. My dry-cleaning ticket has more legal enforcement power to make it effective than my marriage vow.
The only thing the law does with marriage vows is to ensure that if broken they stay broken. What contract do you know that is only enforced when terminated by one party when the other party has not breached ? Two-thirds are terminated by women, the vast majority against the mans’ wishes. We have made a traditional vow of life-time mutual support and obligation a legal farce of at-will association. That low bar is the only reason that gay folks would come near it — what risk is there? The failure of public policy on marriage lies at the heart of among other thing the intransigent race situation. We really don’t just get to define things willy-nilly without consequence. If you think that societies do not simply die out from such willfulness — you are not studying history.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 2:34 amesurience says:
Marriage is a civil institution defined by law. (It’s also a religious institution, but that’s not what we’re talking about here). The legal definition of marriage is however the law defines it.
Marriage also has a cultural definition. And guess what? Part of that cultural definition already includes marriage between two people of the same sex. Even in Maine, where we lost, 48% of Mainers see marriage that way. 48% of Mainers have no problem with two men, or two women, referring to themselves as married. Whether or not the law recognizes it, gay people will get married, act married, and be treated as married by many of our friends and family.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 2:44 amesurience says:
How does allowing two men or two women to get married weaken the institution? I’m concerned with the weakening of the institution of marriage as well, but I think that, if anything, marriage equality will help to strengthen the institution of marriage.
Right now there are same-sex couples who are living together, and sometimes raising children. Wouldn’t it be better to send a message to all people that if you’re raising children, you should get married? If you’re living together (in a romantic relationship), you should get married? The message you’re sending right now is: If you’re cohabitating, get married, unless you’re gay. If you’re raising children, get married, unless you’re gay. How is that helpful for the institution of marriage? How is it helpful for anyone?
Quote
November 5, 2009, 2:53 amG.R. Mead says:
Those are not necessary conditions — for the institution of marriages as a class, as opposed to any instance of an individual marriage. It is not necessary to ensure that no allegedly post menopausal woman marry in order for the type of bond that a woman of any age might form is one that in SOME age ranges can and does result in children. Age-related fertility is an individual variable and uncertain measure in which the history of surprise babies defeats the merits issue there, anyway. Similarly, specific fertility in an individual couple is an individual variable, unsuited to a generic measure for the class of marriage as whole; and intent is even more variable — and reversible, what’s more.
I did not make the policy — millions of our respective forebears did — I for one, have respect for that cumulated embodiment of social survival wisdom from people who died centuries and millenia before us. You do not — and the reason for the difference is in no small part because in maintaining that survival wisdom continuity, like our common forebears I have a vested interest in future societies that I will never see.
And you do not. I might hope that some day you will.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 2:54 amKenster999 says:
You’re exactly right: that’s where we differ. You seem to think that, as a gay man, I’m really just a “defective heterosexual,” if you will.
But you’re wrong. All of the experts have been telling you the truth (and it’s plainly obvious in nature if you’ll accept it). It’s completely natural for some people to be born gay. It seems unnatural to someone born straight, obviously, but it’s completely natural to me since I was born that way. Being gay (ie, having same-sex attractions) is not a choice. Of course, deciding which sexual acts to engage in is a choice. One can be gay and celibate, for example. (Not personally recommended!) But orientation is not a choice.
Who are the experts that have been telling you that? It’s us. We’re the experts, because we know we didn’t choose this. And you have no grounds to claim otherwise.
Your claim that it’s “unnatural” is unsupported. Granted, it does not lead to procreation. (Duh!) But it happens very consistently (at a low rate) in nature. It’s a minor variation. Take it from me, for someone born gay, it’s as natural as breathing. It just is.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 3:10 amesurience says:
I’m not following the distinction here. You want there to be certain conditions on who can get married. Ok, great, with you so far. I also understand that you’d like whatever conditions you come up with to exclude every same-sex couple, but not exclude any opposite-sex couple.
Well, you’ve yet to come up with any condition that would accomplish that — unless you resort to circular reasoning (“marriage needs to be between 1 man and 1 woman because only a marriage between 1 man and 1 woman satisfies the condition of being a marriage between 1 man and 1 woman” — and despite your attempts to obfuscate, that’s the logical equivalent of the recent arguments you’ve made). Of course, you can’t do that, because that would be ridiculous, and the only purpose of stating it that way would be to discriminate against gay people, for no other reason than to discriminate against us.
The problem you’re stuck with, and there’s no getting out of it, is if you choose “procreation” as your policy goal, you simply cannot avoid excluding some heterosexuals from the institution of marriage. You’re unwilling to do that. The only explanation for that unwillingness is that you’re lying about what your policy goal is. It has nothing to do with procreation — it’s a policy goal that is specifically aimed at excluding gay people from the institution of marriage for no other purpose than excluding gay people. Why can’t you just say that already? It would save you a lot of typing.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 3:14 amG.R. Mead says:
That’s Rauch’s argument. The trivial rebuttal is simple. It is not marriage, for the same reason that a bull is not a cow. If it is deemed so by statute then I can solve the whole problem — by statute I will define all homosexual men lesbians and all lesbians as gay men, and then require that all persons who are straight can only marry the opposite sex, and if gay, then lesbians can only marry women and gay men can only marry men. There, see how easy it is to fix things with words...? Why can’t the legislature simply define people’s sex by statute if they themselves disregard an objective biological attribute that defines it?
Second rebuttal “Divorce? No-fault? What could it hurt?” (I mean apart from no-fault being a Communist conspiracy) Heh. He thinks I am kidding.)
Quote
November 5, 2009, 3:16 amGrover Gardner says:
And barring gay people from getting married corrects that...how?
So, you’re saying that gay people take their commitments less seriously than straight people?
Because black people take marriage even less seriously than gay people? Or...what?
Ah, the good old days, when men were men and women were true to their word.
Joking aside, it should again be pointed out that no one is trying to prevent fertile straight people from marrying and continuing the species.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 3:21 amKenster999 says:
Please realize that’s very insulting to gay people. Can you not believe that we might want to get married in order to have that special person to journey through life with, for better or for worse, just like straight people do? Do you really think we’re so different?
I can understand, and even agree with, your position that most people believe the word “marriage” to imply one man and one woman (among other attributes). Fine. But please — consider changing your personal definition. Certainly not today, but maybe one day. I think you’ll find the required change is very minimal (just change the sex of one of the them!), but the rest of the important things that marriage brings (love, committment, support, etc) remain. Letting more people enroll in such a supportive institution will be a net gain for society. It won’t lead kids to turning gay (an excess of which obviously would strain or break society). And the concrete benefits it brings to gay people are huge.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 3:22 amGrover Gardner says:
I think he realizes that.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 3:29 amGrover Gardner says:
Or, we could just let gay people get married.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 3:34 amJohn D says:
Ah, but I can.
California Proposition 4 was a recent parental notification initiative. It would have required that the parents of a minor seeking abortion be notified before the abortion could be performed. This was the third time a measure of this sort had been placed before the California voters.
I think all three iterations (all unsuccessful, by the way) were within the last 15 years. Certainly Prop 4 was. That came up in the same election as Proposition 8 and the Obama/McCain race.
Fifteen years? I can think of one in the last twelve months.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 4:01 amG.R. Mead says:
They have always been excluded — it is no doing of mine. It just so happens that marriage is and always has been about something important — but just NOT about gay people. That may be hard to fathom that something important could be about somebody other than those you identify with — but it happens. It is right and rational, but — Quit beating the strawman ...
The policy goal is the survival of society, not procreation. Procreation would be a sufficient condition for survival — but free societies have no acceptable means to enforce proceation. So we fall back on the necessary condition of procreation — for marriages as a class and that is simply male-female pairs. My Neanderthal cousins, ninety times removed, had this concept fairly well in hand.
What is insulting in the observation that lowering the threshold of perceived legal risk to attain a socially approved status increased the likely scope of interested entrants? Of what field of legal regulation is this NOT true? If there have been same-sex marriage movements before no-fault made marriage without procreation less binding than a theater ticket, please let me know.
Of course, I can believe that. And I deeply sympathize. And no we are not, except in THE very key issue for the question of — marriage.
It isn’t mine to change. But neither is it yours, or any collection of us, in any governmental form. Marriage does not require the existence of the state that regulates it — the state on the other hand presupposes and depends radically upon marriage as a social institution it did not create, but must protect for its own sake.
And barring men from women’s restrooms corrects what, how?? Somethings belong together and some belong apart and together in some circumstances and apart in others.
But the problem is not sex, or reason — it is will. You want what you want — the reality of other matters is irrelevant to your will ...
This is a problem in our time well beyond this issue, but deeply bound in it — and so my arguments are not rebutted in substance, but in feeling, whether of regret, irritation or indignation that ther are reasoned argument against what you feel should be right — but is not fo reason to whihc our respective feeling are irrelevant. The tiger cares not how you feel when he eats you — Nature is like that.
In sociobiological terms, indisputably, because they have no reproductive commitments by the fact of marriage. In personal terms, I doubt seriously there is any difference whatsoever..
Oh please. The disaster of the collapse of black families is the making of the government and academies “bright ideas” and “what could it hurt” social interventions, devaluing fathers and the law of unintended consequences. Moynihan only told us about all that forty years ago and it is now much, much worse. Let’s not have another one, please?
Quote
November 5, 2009, 4:14 amKenster999 says:
Oh, I misunderstood what you were saying. I think we’re in agreement on most of this. I would definitely agree that lowering the “risk” of marriage makes it more likely that people will try it. Making divorce easier lowers your risk of a bad marriage ruining your life, so more people are likely to “give it a go.”
OK, you want to encourage procreation, and the protection and propagation of society, and you choose to do that by sanctioning marriage between men and woman. Again, I’m fine with that. Let men and women pair off, make families, make babies, and propagate away. Who could disagree?
But then, what about gay people who don’t fit in that other set? The Venn diagram shows completely distinct circles — no overlapping. Should society encourage us also to marry someone in our set, or discourage it, or have no policy?
I suspect your answer will be that same-sex couples can commit to each other — and maybe even that they should (rather than being lonely) — but just don’t call it “marriage.” If so, then we’re back to the question of semantics. And as I stated above, allowing same-sex couples to marry isn’t a very big stretch of the definition, and has huge benefits for all. I think the benefits are strong enough to argue that society in general (and you in particular) should change the common understanding of marriage.
There, I done your thinking for you. You’re welcome!
Quote
November 5, 2009, 5:07 amRoaming says:
To those whose postings smack of a flat-earth or a-woman-can’t-be-a-policeman-because-it’s-policeman or I-don’t-want-my-kids-hanging-around-no-black-folk-’cause-their-skin-will-get-dark quality, I find your lack of empathy truly disheartening. Just imagine that you were born gay (yes, that’s how it works), or — less of a reach — that you are born straight and that being born gay is the “norm” — and you’ve grown up with the same societal tantalizations about marriage as everyone else but you are denied it based on majority rule. Would you happily accept being a second-class citizen?
Quote
November 5, 2009, 7:39 amscattergood says:
Well, smart people, eye glass wearn people, musical idiots, and musical prodigies are not asking to be treated as a protected class.
I would argue that heterosexual behavior is genetically deterministic as the reproductive inpulse shows. However, even if it isn’t heterosexuals are not asking to be treated as a special class. Homosexuals are by asking to not be bound by the limitation to only marry people of the opposite sex.
Now autism is an interesting case. There does seem to be a genetic heritibility of the syndrom:
And even more importantly there is no case that I know of somebody being normal functioning, becoming autistic, and then becoming normal functioning. Nor is there a case of a half-autistic / half-normal functioning person. There are too many to count examples of such fluidity with regards to same sex, opposite sex, and bi sexual behavior.
Further, autisitc people fall within a recognized protected class, handicapped people.
Now if there were a limitation to only marry people of the same sex and heterosexuals stated ‘hey I am hard wired to only have sex with people of the opposite sex and thus it is inappropriate to have this limitation on us’ then it would be reasonable to question whether such behavior was actually hard wired, or whether they are a created class or not. The fact that the inverse logic of the SSM proposal is assinine on its face indicates that the pro SSM logic is pretty absurd.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 9:14 amSonicfrog says:
.
So much so that the founders specifically enshrined that in the Constitution. Oh wait...
Jeez, I just realized how many sharks this thread has jumped.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 9:15 amdeathsinger says:
Where do I meet these people?
Let’s see. I worked at a supermarket with Fred. Never knew he was gay until the police informed me. (Fred was “buying” stereo equipment with checks that never cleared and selling them.)
I also worked with Tony at the supermarket. He’s the one who thought it was funny to change “Thank you and please come back,” to “F i_i ck you and come all over yourself. He “borrowed” a customers credit card. Somehow he didn’t go to jail or lose his job. After that he didn’t have any friends at work and decided that he would call everyone a bigot because he wasn’t liked because he is gay.
My cousin I met because he is my cousin. He stole from his parents, brothers and half the rest of the family.
Marty I met at a friend’s party. My friend works with Marty. Marty stole money from the employer and was terminated. I only found out Marty was gay because he tried to use the excuse that he was being terminated because he is gay.
Ben worked with a friend of mine. We met at a Super Bowl Party. Again didn’t know he was gay until he was convicted of rape. Although when I was told he was arrested everyone told me that I should have known because he was hitting on me at the party. I wouldn’t know. Since I don’t have experience being hit on, I guess I didn’t catch on. My friend was also sexually harassed at work by a gay VP.
My MIL owns her own business. I have met all of her employees. Over the years several that have been caught pocketing money from the cash register have claimed they were fired because they were gay. A few even claimed they were going to sue. (My MIL never has called the police or sought to have these people prosecuted.)
My wife is an artist connected to a gallery. Several of the male artists are gay (I know this because they basically introduce themselves as “Hi I’m Bob and I’m gay). They have bounced checks, asked to be bailed out and have proven to be incredibly unreliable (I’ll drop my work off at 3:00 today, when they haven’t shown up by 5:00, there is always some impossible excuse).
I continue to give gay people the benefit of the doubt. I am an engineer. I live on a street where everyone is married with kids. I don’t think my experience with the gay community is representative, so I didn’t vote for the Cons Amend in TN to ban SSM. That anyone thinks I have Gaydar is offensive.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 9:33 amscattergood says:
I certainly have never said that you don’t have same sex attractions. People have attractions all the time that they don’t act on nor are they deterministically forced to act on.
The logic you put forth is plainly dumb. Animal rapists were just born rapists, how do we know, they tell us. And thiefs were born thiefs, how do we know they tell us. And murders and violent criminials were just born that way. Nudists, don’t even get me started, they just KNOW they have to walk around nude. I mean look at them as little kids, they wanted to just remove their clothes and run around. How can we ask them to stop!
You have zero support for your position other than, trust me, I feel I have no choice. Even the Iowa SC decision recognizes this. How do you legislate feelings? I feel like a black woman, really really I do. To deny me affirmative action is a horrible and terrible violation of my civil rights.
I on the other hand have a ton of evidence to support my position. How many people have same sex attraction feelings and don’t act on them? How many people are attracted to their mother’s and don’t act on it, or their sister, or their cousin?
Again, I have never said you shouldn’t engage in same sex activity. Put what ever you want where ever you want. However, I have said that your participation in those activites does not make you a protected class in a legal sense. And that is what the argument is about.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 9:37 amSonicfrog says:
I don’t know about the Supermarket gay-o-rama, but gay artists???? Bouncing checks????
It’s not because they’re gay, it’s because they’re artist! DUH!!!
PS. I’m a musician, and they’re disproportionately flaky too.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 9:52 amG.R. Mead says:
Well, the known, natural and frequent consequence of men and women marrying is the generation of the child and a family, the fundamental notes or “seed syllables” of a society, that if (and this is the important part) their resepctive status is mutually recognized by another family and their respective progeny are suitably inclined — then we have a society and it is by nature self-replicating — at that point.
Marriage, in origin, was a consequential status, not an agreement with consequence, and it was a grave mistake to treat marriage like an agreement, because it is not. Marriage requires not merely the consent of the participants to funciton proeply but the willing recognition of non-parties to the consensual relation — i.e. it is a status, not a contract. For this reason marriage-as-contract has slowly collapsed into the lowest reaches of the contract universe — below employment at will, even — because it has no real support structure there. We are so inimical to the very concept of legal status (except in employment, curiously) that people do not even argue about the same issue though they may speak the same words. But the issue is basic and unavoidable in this legal and policy debate.
The natural consequence of a man and a man or a woman and woman is not a child and thus they are not the natrual source of a socially functioning family — as a status outside of any law. There is thus no need for the mutual (and thus legal) recognition of that status to promote and protect the repetition of that status in their progeny ( whihc are non-existent), so they are incapable of sparking the enduring and durable process we call society. These three things are the sine qua non of every society since man was recognizable as man: two independent families, mutual recognition of their common status (the root of law, BTW), and protection of the repetition of their mutually recognized family structure.
Marriage is simply an unnecessary conditon to the participation of gay people in society. Their orientation is not evil or bad, as such, except if it is out of place. Water is very good — but an evil if you try to breathe it. Their status can only be adjunct to the foundations of any society, and not fundamental to it. In C.S. Lewis’s terms, whatever the place of gay people in society — they can only ever be “second things” and not “first things” — and the same is quite frankly true of religious celibates of whatever persuasion. All may serve, enjoy or make better or more beautiful the society in which they function, and be treated equal in every other secondary respect — but not all may participate in the first and foremost foundational work that forms and continues that society — and thus they cannot claim equality in it.
To treat them in terms that suggest they are not distinguishable from the foundations of society in actual marriages is simply objectively false. Any fracture in the objective conditions at the foundations of a structure is dangerous and unpredictable especially as its social weight increases.
In addition to beginning a crack in the social formation process — it is also an erosion in the root of the law — in mutual and peaceable recognition of two groups that have no present genetic ties — and which creates those ties to cause (by the work of the fundamental law of marriage) a genetic link and mutual biological obligation to be created — making the circle of cooperation and mutual recognition (and thus peaceable, self-recognized law) much larger. Forcing recognition of this status is deeply harmful, because it is at odds with what marriage naturally does and has done in the slow accumulation of the mind-bogglingly wide circles of mutual trust we now enjoy.
You are playing with a fire you did not make, do not wish to tend in its native state, and do not truly comprehend. It is very dangerous in ways you have not paused to consider, but which human beings seemed to have evolved instinctive reactions to in a visceral way — because of the fundamental nature of thing we are addressing. We have instincts that are honed to defend against such fundamental threats to our collective well-being — but being so fundamental most people have difficulty articulating them .
But the inarticulate guy is not wrong for trying his damnedest to knock you out of the road you want to walk on when you are in the path of a truck he can see but you cannot. There are reasons for visceral reaction. You see the visceral reactions around you, but simply labelling them “homophobic” is not comprehension, but dismissal without understanding. You clearly do not understand that and so I am trying to explain them to you, objectively, in terms of why this is at once 1) a legal issue and 2) beyond law.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 10:32 amMark Field says:
As John D already mentioned, there have been several just here in CA. Nationwide, there have been dozens. SD alone has had quite a few. See, e.g., here (describing two such measures just last year).
Quote
November 5, 2009, 10:34 amzuch says:
Mark:
Ummmm ... you need to read up on “heritability”. Heritability is not a fixed number. It is dependent not only on the genetics in question (which, discounting evolution, tend to stay relatively constant), but also on the specific environment in question. Things that have a high heritability in one environment may have very low heritability in another.
Cheers,
Quote
November 5, 2009, 11:13 amyankee says:
What on earth is this supposed to mean? Gay marriages have a penis and testes and straight marriages have a ovaries and a vagina?
Language changes. Rape was, by definition, a crime committed by a man against a woman not his wife, until we changed the definition because the new one was an improvement.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 11:23 amzuch says:
G.R. Mead says:
Indeed. When by “gem”, you mean totally incoherent ‘logic’. Care to try again?
Cheers,
Quote
November 5, 2009, 11:26 amdeathsinger says:
Sonicfrog,
And if they left it at they are artists instead of “you’re only doing this because I am gay,” I would agree. They are the ones ascribing it to the gay-straight relationship, not me. I don’t want to know that they are gay.
As for Supermarket gay-o-rama.
I worked for six years at a store of 200 employees. Assuming 20% turn over that means that I worked with 420+ people in six years. If you are claiming that 2 out of 420+ makes it gay-o-rama, that puts the gay population at less than 0.5% of the population. Are you now saying that seems high?
Quote
November 5, 2009, 11:35 amMartinned says:
I a general sense, sure. We don’t get to pick and choose which laws to obey, and that includes tax laws, but the legal order as a whole has to earn our respect.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 11:38 amzuch says:
deathsinger:
I never suggested that you have Gaydar. What I would suggest, in hindsight, is that you have serious reading deficiencies (amongst other handicaps). And I’ll tell you up front that I really don’t give a rat’s keister if you’re offended. Say, ever wonder why you’re surrounded by crooks and thieves? Is it genetic, or is it environmental? Only your hairdresser knows for sure....
Cheers,
Quote
November 5, 2009, 11:38 amdeathsinger says:
Mark,
Thanks. Here in TN none of this goes on because the SC of TN has ruled that the Constitution recognizes a right to an abortion. (No, I don’t have any details.) While an amendment to the State Constitution could change that, there hasn’t been a ballot measure for something like that I can remember.
It is unfortunate that abortion and SSM don’t have easy answers. Those issues seem to displace issues of national importance (education, health care, taxes).
Quote
November 5, 2009, 11:45 amSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
1. Homosexuality is either a birth defect (I will stipulate that it is an innocuous birth defect, like color blindness, if that matters), or it is a paraphilia. In neither case does it make sense for the possessors of the characteristic to demand, much less expect, class recognition.
2. There is no logical way to accept SSM and not accept polygamy (I think that polygamy is actually on better legal and historical ground than SSM, but I don’t need to argue that). So the “I am for SSM, and I will sign the anti-polygamy petition any day of the week!” ploy does not really help.
3. The SSM-ers are probably right that, in a vacuum, allowing SSM would not ipso facto cause any significant harm to society.
4. I would not be too quick if I were pro-SSM to rest on “demography is on our side”. Politics is an odd game, sometimes (see national health care)
Quote
November 5, 2009, 11:59 amSonicfrog says:
Wait, I thought the problem was that the artists were bouncing checks and are flaky with money. What are you doing to them to get the “you’re only doing this because I am gay,” response? Or are you confusing your made-up stories about scary gay people?
I don’t want to know that they are gay.As for Supermarket gay-o-rama.I worked for six years at a store of 200 employees.Assuming 20% turn over that means that I worked with 420+ people in six years.If you are claiming that 2 out of 420+ makes it gay-o-rama, that puts the gay population at less than 0.5% of the population.Are you now saying that seems high?
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:09 pmSonicfrog says:
deathsinger: Sonicfrog,
And if they left it at they are artists instead of “you’re only doing this because I am gay,” I would agree.They are the ones ascribing it to the gay-straight relationship, not me.
Wait, I thought the problem was that the artists were bouncing checks and are flaky with money. What are you doing to the artists to get the “you’re only doing this because I am gay,” response? Or are you confusing your made-up stories about scary gay people?
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:14 pmSarcastro says:
1. Thinking Asians are hot is either a birth defect (I will stipulate that it is an innocuous birth defect, like color blindness, if that matters), or it is a paraphilia. In neither case does it make sense for the possessors of the characteristic to demand, much less expect, class recognition.
Or to be allowed the same rights as normals.
2. There is no logical way to accept Asian/non-Asian marriage and not accept polygamy (I think that polygamy is actually on better legal and historical ground than AnAM, but I don’t need to argue that). So the “I am for SSM, and I will sign the anti-polygamy petition any day of the week!” ploy does not really help.
‘Cause Logic Dictates you’re wrong and I’m right so you should stop making wrong arguments and agree with my saying you are wrong.
3. The AnAM-ers are probably right that, in a vacuum, allowing AnAM would not ipso facto cause any significant harm to society.
But we totally live in air, so stop loving those Asians!
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:15 pmSonicfrog says:
deathsinger
My older brothers lead singer stole and pawned his bass.
A guy in high school got his thrills from torturing and killing cats (he met an untimely end if memory serves).
A former friend bought a boat, lived on it for three months, never made a payment, falsified a pink slip, fraudulently sold the boat to someone, then fled to London.
A friend brother has been caught several times stealing from his own family, including gift money at Christmas.
An acquaintance (friend of a friend) will soon be getting out of jail for being an accessory to kidnapping and murder.
One of my dear friends, a great influence on my life, was bashed to death by someone who has never been caught.
All of the perps listed above are straight. If I adopt your attitude, I should distrust all straight men and hold the entire population of them in contempt.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:27 pmMichael Ejercito says:
There is no comparison.
The differences between men and women are greater than the differences between Asians and non-Asians– let alone differences among Asians.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:30 pmjab says:
Wait... it says Volokh on my web browser...
I thought I was on, you know, a LIBERTARIAN blog... but
somehow I think the intertubes mixed up the comments section with
Red State or Focus on the family or something.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:33 pmSarcastro says:
Glad Michael Ejercito knows where to draw the line when who you love stops being cool and starts becoming defective!
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:38 pmjab says:
To my pro-marriage equality compatriots...
Don’t get too upset over the vote in Maine.
The reality is... we have already won this fight.
It will take a little while longer for the bigots to die off
and the laws to change, but we are clearly on
an inevitable course to equality.
Disappointing as this one battle was, the war will
clearly resolve on the side of equality.
Think how far we’ve come in just one decade.
Don’t despair.
In fact, enjoy these comment threads for the pure comedy gold that they are.
And to the bigots who have their hopes set on the fact
that all the very pro-gay young are going to switch to anti-gay when they get older...
keep dreaming... this is NOT at all like views on abortion changing...
there is a direct connection for adults having children and their views on abortion changing...
but that connection is not there with regards to marriage equality.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:40 pmSonicfrog says:
Oh Thank GOD! Sarcastro’s here!!! Dammit man, we’ve needed your levity here twelve hours ago!!!!!
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:44 pmMichael Ejercito says:
Racial differences are superficial.
Sexual differences are fundamental
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:46 pmSonicfrog says:
Sexual differences are HOT!
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:57 pmSarcastro says:
Well, that’s that then! I mean, who can contradict such an argument? I know I can’t! Sorry gay dudes, what you feel is defective.
Though if sexual differences are fundamental to who we are, then we really need to stop treating women as the same as men. Treat them equal, but, you know, separate spheres.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:59 pmMichael Ejercito says:
Our society, as well as the Constitution, permits separate and equal when it comes to gender.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 1:16 pmMartha says:
You are baffled why someone whose religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin doesn’t want to have that conversation with their 5 year old? Really?
No. I’m baffled that
1) people think they shouldn’t have to have such conversations with their kids. No matter where you live, your kids will encounter gay people. As a parent, you should *want* to be the person they bring their questions to.
2) people think that these conversations will be dif