You know, I seem to remember months ago wondering how in the world Prop 8 wasn’t in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Today a San Francisco judge ruled that Prop 8 was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Didn’t see THAT coming.
Just imagine: All we need now is for a pair of same sex anchor babies to get married and the far right’s collective head will explode.
PAD
• 
Unfortunately, at some point this hits the Supreme Court and I’m not terribly confident about the ruling they’ll give and the precedent it will set.
The Supreme can always not grand cert. They might not want any part of it.
.
Which probably won’t happen; they’ll probably take the case. We’ll see, I guess.
.
PAD
The SCOTUS doesn’t make me very confident either, but a couple things give me some comfort:
1.) Kennedy has not voted with the conservative end of the court on gay rights cases.That’s why Walker cites Kennedy so liberally throughout his opinion.
and
2.) Overturning Walker’s decision would, most likely, open up a Pandora’s box of possibilities even the conservative end of the court wouldn’t welcome. I expect we’ll see a lot of articles in the next year or two analyzing why the SC might not even want to touch this case because of the possible repercussions.
PB, since my earlier statement I’ve heard a little about what you’re talking about with Kennedy’s record on gay rights. I’m feeling more confidant about what side the Supreme Court might come out on.
Well, despite my being a Republican, I think this is good news for all the couples, who despite making a commitment that is considered a sin, now can marry with hopefully a little less fear
Well, I like to think that not everyone that is registered as a Republican believes in everything that all Republican’s are “supposed to”. Likewise for Democrats.
Whether you are for or against same sex marriage the fact one unelected individual can overturn the will of the majority of the citizens should be cause for serious concern for everyone.
And as far as what people do on their own time being a libertarian as I am I don’t care as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. But I do care when a point of view is forced on my or any child child in school and I have no say in the matter. Whether that’s homosexuality being right, or creative design being correct, hëll I don’t even want them forcing my son to sit and hear that The Rolling Stones were better than Aerosmith. Just teach my child and quit trying to brainwash him.
I am curious as to where Mr David would draw the line for marriage though. Would the line be drawn at polygamy? Or how about if two brothers wanted to marry? Just curious is all.
When the will of a majority of citizens is to oppress a minority, then I am very glad that an official, any official, can overturn that will.
Just curious is all.
.
Hey, PAD, I bet you didn’t see this coming either.
1. Homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom. It’s real and it’s natural and it would be stupid to treat it as being in any way analogous to creative design, which is a factually wrong form of ideologically driven propaganda.
2. The Rolling Stones actually are infinitely better than Aerosmith, and dámņ straight people should know that.
Yes, but The Who trumps both of them.
Have all of you forgotten a quartet known as The Beatles?
“Libertarian”, huh?
.
And you believe that the mob has the right to tell you what to do in your private life?
.
As a matter of fact, even without checking, i’d bet that my Libertarian friends (one of them a Prometheus Award winner) would be in favour of this ruling, since it essentially affirms that marriage is a private contract that the State has no business mesing with.
Aww… you didn’t mention animals or with children. Your slippery slope isn’t steep enough.
Hey Craig and Mike, UNlike everyone else who has posted so far and will post I’m not gonna stand here and proclaim that I have the answer for this question. What I am saying is that I have a problem with any unelected official telling me what can and can’t be done. Let’s use the Supreme Court’s decision that it is legal to take my grandmother’s house and give it to Wal-Mart.
Well Mimi, I figured I should keep my argument to adults only, even if NAMBLA would want otherwise. And you can be as snarky as you want but you know as well as I do that is coming next. And what’s wrong with wanting to know how far Mr. David would want to extend marriage?
Well, I’m not claiming to have the answer either – and I have said as much on this blog. Which is what I’m really poking at you about: this is not the first time this particular argument has come up on this blog, much less elsewhere.
.
But such an argument is an anti-gay marriage staple and has no bearing on the issue of gay marriage itself. It’s simply there to distract, confuse, and avoid the real issue of why people are against gay marriage.
Whether you are for or against same sex marriage the fact one unelected individual can overturn the will of the majority of the citizens should be cause for serious concern for everyone.
In 1942/43, one unelected official could have prevented 110,000 citizens and their parents from being swept up from there homes and divested of their possessions.
You need to think harder on this.
Good example, and i’ll raise you the fact that racism was so entrenched in the Southern states that it would still be there without those same unelected officials. There are examples of good and bad decisions made by justices going against the will of the people but to give one person who was just appointed by someone the right to throw out the will of the majority on ANY subject scares the crap out of me.
.
“Whether you are for or against same sex marriage the fact one unelected individual can overturn the will of the majority of the citizens should be cause for serious concern for everyone”
.
Joel, the fact that one unelected individual can and has declared Prop 8 unconstitutional should cause no one any concern. Why? Because that’s how our system is designed to begin with.
.
Our system is such that laws that would go against what is Constitutionally protected can be challenged, taken to court and overturned. Our history as a nation has quite a few of these moments it. Many of these moments were things that we see as right and proper now, but were seen as in direct conflict with the will of the majority of the time. Civil rights history is full of these moments.
.
Sometimes what is right is not what is popular and what is popular is not Constitutional. In these moments our system is designed to correct this problem. It did so today. Nothing new, not the first time and not the last time.
.
Obviously the bold was not supposed to go on past the first paragraph. Sorry about that.
I don’t know what Peter David’s opinion would be, but I would firmly support polygamy or marriage between brothers.
Okay, Mary, but only if it’s the Baldwin brothers.
.
PAD
“the fact one unelected individual can overturn the will of the majority of the citizens should be cause for serious concern for everyone.”
.
It’s not just one individual. It’s not even close. It took a lot more than one person to create the 14th amendment and this judge is simply enforcing it.
.
No point of view is being forced on your child. Is your child being forced to marry someone of the same sex? Saying that the existence of gay people in married relationships forces something on your child is exactly the same as saying that people practicing other religions is forcing something on your child. Your family isn’t being forced into someone else’s church and your church shouldn’t be forced into someone else’s family.
I’m sorry, but screw any mention of “Will of the majority”.
If the “will of the majority” were all that, I wouldn’t be an American citizen, and could NEVER be an American citizen, even though I was born here and my parents were born here.
What we’re talking about is basic civil rights–i.e., are you a human being? “Will of majority” doesn’t get to decide if a person is human or not. It just doesn’t.
Roger, i’m guessing you’re of some Oriental extraction and that you’re referring to the Chinese Exclusion Act (i think that was the name).
.
I was surprised to discover some years ago that when Leslie Charteris, creator of the Saint, wanted to become a US citizen (about 1938, i think), it required a special Act of Congress, because his father was Chinese. (His full name was Leslie C. B. Yin.)
Why do people always do this? Why, when it comes to same sex marriage, they start dragging out multiple spouses and incest? Don’t you realize how predictable you are?
.
I’ll say the same thing I always do when this tired wheeze is introduced: When there is a national outcry for multiple marriages, when a massive number of siblings demand the right to marry…then we’ll take a look at it. Right now, I very much doubt that brothers are going to want to get married. I think most people don’t want multiple marriages. Throwing up blockades over what people might want in some unlikely future in order to thwart the rights of what a sizable number of citizens DO want is just ridiculous.
.
Fifty years ago, I’ve no doubt that plenty of people would have wanted to block interracial marriage with the exact same arguments. Should blacks have been forbidden from marrying whites on that basis?
.
Furthermore, once upon a time, the majority of citizens opposed civil rights. And they opposed integration and equal education. Sometimes leaders have to lead, and it is their job–and the jobs of the courts–to protect the rights of citizens who may not be properly represented in the majority opinion.
.
News flash, Joel: Your son’s going to be exposed to opinions and concepts that you don’t want him to hear and see. Now, you can either sit down with him and answer questions that you apparently don’t want to deal with. Or you can lock him in the house right now.
.
Gays don’t want to brainwash your child. They don’t give a dámņ about your child. They don’t care about the way you live your life. They just want the right to live their own life.
.
PAD
Actually, PAD, interracial marriage was illegal in 17 states until 1969, only 41 years ago. And yes, many of those same arguments were used then…
Given how some elements of the GOP always rail hardest against what they are secretly themselves, I wonder if there IS a flood of GOP elements who want to marry their horse and sister…
Yes, Jonathan, I know laws were still on the books as recently as forty years ago. I know when “Loving” was. I rolled it back an additional ten years in my example to a point where such laws were even more prevalent to underscore the notion of majority opinion rather than a waning law losing its hold.
.
PAD
Amen. followed by a “whoop whoop”.
Hrm…
Children at school brainwashed into thinking homosexuality is right? Check.
Gay marriage leads to polygamy? Check.
Gay marriage leads to sibling incest? Check.
Activist judge violating the will of the majority? Check.
Oh, but you’re not against same-sex marriage, no, not at all. No, of course those gays can do whatever they want behind closed doors. They’re all free to live their lives in private, right? Surely, they must understand, you need to protect your child. He might see that they exist, and then come home and ask you awkward questions. Who knows? Your kid might even go to school with some of their kids.
Other people already said everything I wanted to say.
Polygamy and siblings would have to pass the “reality test” too. If there is a time when those types of relationships are widespread, and a large portion of them seem to be as stable, functional, and long-lasting as traditional marriages, then we can start seriously discussing them.
Right now it’s just a cheap scare tatic.
Whether you are for or against same sex marriage the fact one unelected individual can overturn the will of the majority of the citizens should be cause for serious concern for everyone.
Do you understand the concept of three branches of government? There’s a reason it’s set up the way it is, and it’s called “Checks and Balances.” When one side, in this case the legislative, overreaches, another side, the judicial, does its job and calls foul.
All this whinging about judicial activism indicates a lack of knowledge about how government is set up in this country.
Good example, and i’ll raise you the fact that racism was so entrenched in the Southern states that it would still be there without those same unelected officials.
I’m not talking about the South.
I am, however, talking about the law. Which this supposedly a government of, not men. You’re talking as if you don’t believe in that.
The will of the majority is not sacred. Not when it screws over the rights of individuals.
According to the Yahoo News story, this particular judge was appointed by Reagan, but his appointment was held up for two years due to protests by Gay activists. Don’t you just love irony?
.
I’m fully in favour of getting rid of Proposition 8, but I’m not sure I agree with the reasoning used in this decision. I can’t be sure, because the news stories I’ve seen are pretty vague on what the legal ruling was exactly. I would rather see a court abolish all marriage laws on 1st Amendment grounds (marriage customs are too tangled up with religion for the law to be involved, I think), but it doesn’t seem likely that that will happen any time soon.
“I would rather see a court abolish all marriage laws on 1st Amendment grounds (marriage customs are too tangled up with religion for the law to be involved, I think…”
Agreed. If “Marriage” can be re-defined then it simply is meaningless. May as well use the term “Smurf”.
Peter, You don’t have to be religious to understand the fact that male parts go with female parts. However, if one is religious then rejecting an obvious biological design by the Creator would be considered a sin. So, What’s your problem with God?
God gave people the free will to do what they want with their body parts. I don’t see the problem.
.
By the logic you just presented, any couple who goes to extraordinary means to have children would be sinners because it’s not happening “naturally.”
.
PAD
And hey, if females have periods as soon as 12 years old, then God designed them to have babies as early as 12 years old, let’s legalize it!
God hates fágš, but he seems to love pedos.
If “Marriage” can be re-defined then it simply is meaningless.
.
Marriage has been redefined many times in human history. It existed before Christianity (who is the major group trying to decide what marriage is for the rest of us right now), and it will exist after Christianity.
.
Prop 8 was struck down today, and you know what? My marriage didn’t suddenly lose all meaning. Nor did it for anybody else, including those who so vehemently oppose gay marriage.
Considering that homosexual (for want of a better term) behaviour has been documented in many species of animals, and considering that (assuming you believe in God) under God’s plan animals, by virtue of not having the same kind of intelligence that we have, cannot act in an unnatural manner …
.
Then God must be okay with homosexuality.
.
(Speaking of God’s opinion on homosexuality, i direct you to this comic from a few days ago. Quite possibly NSFW.)
Rudy, i speak from experience in this matter, Male parts most assuredly go with other male parts.
Ah, surely the gays stopped protesting after they successfully brainwashed him. Gays have magic mind control, right? Insane right wing propaganda wouldn’t lie about that, and it’s always talking about gays brainwashing people.
.
So. 20+ years ago, they brainwashed this judge, planning for this exact scenario. That’s how devious they are.
.
So, has this scenario popped up on Fox News yet?
At what point does an anchor baby stop being an anchor baby and become simply a…you know…American citizen?
But, anyway—Prop h8 smacked down! Yeah! The show on Twitter and Facebook is hilarious, too.
When it’s born.
An additional thought, courtesy of my daughter Ariel: Based on divorce statistics, half the people who marry ONE spouse at a time can’t make it work. How unlikely is it that they could make being married to more than one spouse work. Or would even want to try.
.
PAD
It ain’t easy, let me tell you – most people really couldn’t handle it…
Some years ago, when the subject of gay marriage was just beginning to percolate to the surface of the public’s perception, right-wing talkshow host Neal Boortz was saying that, so far as he was concerned, if gays wanted to marry, let them. It wouldn’t change his marriage or damage it in any way.
.
At which point, Royal Marshall, his second banana – i think Royal was been the producer on the program – spoke up and said he could offer one thing that gay marriage would lead to that was terrifying to imagine.
.
Boortz walked right into it and asked what.
.
“Gay divorce court.”
As someone who is in a long term poly relationship, and as someone who knows plenty of poly relationships, I can tell you there are more of us than you think. And most of us are hoping for the day where we could actually be married, and have some of the rights of 2 person couples. This is not meant to distract or detract from prop 8 being overturned in any way (which is a good thing).
.
I just think it’s funny, some of the comments here (not neccesarilly yours – which was made in jest) represent a sort of soft dismissal or even discrimination that if made towards gay relationships wouldn’t be acceptable.
.
Noone can make any arguement to me against poly marriages, that wasn’t used against gay marriages.
I’ve never understood the widespread animosity towards polygamy. It’s always sounded completely normal to me, even though I’ve never known anyone who practiced it (unless they kept it very secret).
It’s nice to finally meet someone. Hi, Jerry.
I believe the major problem with legal polygamy is that in the country where it exists, polyandry is not authorized, which is not acceptable.
I don’t believe in fidelity and in exclusive love, so I’m 100% ok with polygamy as long as the guy who has numerous wife is ok with the fact that each of them can have other husbands.
There is also the matter, in some countries, of the social allocations given to married couples. If people have more than one wife or husband, it could be hard to sustain for the economy. But it shouldn’t get in the way of people’s choices of life.
“I’ve never understood the widespread animosity towards polygamy. It’s always sounded completely normal to me, even though I’ve never known anyone who practiced it (unless they kept it very secret).
It’s nice to finally meet someone. Hi, Jerry.”
.
The animosity towards polyamoury is very widespread. Until recently, I kept my own feelings on the matter a secret.
.
The only thing that changed me was the realization that I was simply too old to pretend to be someone else in order to sustain a relationship. When I was younger, if my SO wanted me to be exclusive, I was exclusive.
.
Now that I’m pushing 40 and realizing the self-destructiveness of my prior behaviour, I’ve decided that I’m poly, and whomever I am with will have to accept that. Because, I’d now rather be alone than not be myself.
.
Theno
I know, think of the alimony payments..
PAD, I never said that there was a giant gay conspiracy to come take the brain of my child. But when in public schools in California they are teaching children in SECOND GRADE homosexuality is natural I have to ask why is it the school’s place and why are they doing it to children so young?
I’ll deal with the hard questions when they come before my son PAD but I shouldn’t have to explain to a 6 year old why the teacher says it’s OK to kiss little boys.
PAD I bring up polygamy and incest because it will be the next fight before the courts. And if I and those who bring it up are predictable then it is because it is clear what will happen next even if you want to pretend that it won’t. If you want to pretend that this won’t happen because you are happy with homosexuals marrying then you are doing a disservice to the debate. We must always look at the possible outcomes and the unintended consequences of legislation passed or rejected when talking about an issue such as this.
My original point in my first post that everyone seems to want to ignore is that I don’t like the idea of a single person looking at a law that the State of California’s Attorney General looked at and found nothing wrong with after people spent thousands of dollars and manhours collecting signatures just to get on the ballot and have it pass. But I guess it’s OK because you got the decision you wanted.
The AG didn’t have anything to do with this prop until it was challenged in court. He then decided NOT to defend it, because he felt it violated the Constitution.The Secretary of State’s office validated enough of the signatures to place it on the ballot. You can get any idiotic thing on the ballot here if you find enough idiots that agree with you, are registered voters and will sign your petition. Getting something on the ballot does not signal it’s potential legality. That has always been left to the courts here in California.
But when in public schools in California they are teaching children in SECOND GRADE homosexuality is natural I have to ask why is it the school’s place and why are they doing it to children so young?,/i>
.
You’re just regurgitating the talking points of the pro-bigotry crowd, stemming from a court case in Massachusetts. There is no mandate whatsoever in California public schools to teach about sexuality of any sort in second grade. That is a lie. The only thing that exists in the California education code is that, in schools where sex education is taught, a respect for marriage is to be part of the curriculum.
.
I’ll deal with the hard questions when they come before my son PAD but I shouldn’t have to explain to a 6 year old why the teacher says it’s OK to kiss little boys.
.
First off: Lie (see above). Second, if you have a problem with your school’s curriculum, join the PTA, get on the school board, have parent/teacher conferences. Find a way to actively influence your local district. Deciding that the only way to deal with something you don’t like in your local school district is to stop consenting adults from marrying is just ridiculous.
.
PAD I bring up polygamy and incest because it will be the next fight before the courts.
.
No. It really won’t.
.
And if I and those who bring it up are predictable then it is because it is clear what will happen next even if you want to pretend that it won’t.
.
Evidence, please. I’m tired of fear-mongering substituting for proof. Please provide evidence that brothers are lobbying to marry each other.
.
My original point in my first post that everyone seems to want to ignore is that I don’t like the idea of a single person looking at a law that the State of California’s Attorney General looked at and found nothing wrong with after people spent thousands of dollars and manhours collecting signatures just to get on the ballot and have it pass.
.
Actually, around a dozen people, including me, have addressed it. But as is typical with those of your attitude, you didn’t like what any of us had to say, and thus you pretended that you were ignored.
.
PAD
“Please provide evidence that brothers are lobbying to marry each other.”
Well, statistically speaking, at least some of the homosexuals who want to marry are must be black men… Oh, wait, you meant the other kind of brothers. Never mind.
We all know that brothers wanting to marry each other is wrong. Now if it were a couple of hot sisters…maybe even triplets! Think of the debate THAT would spark!!!
And, honestly, homosexuality being natural should totally be part of the circulum in second grade.
“My original point in my first post that everyone seems to want to ignore is that I don’t like the idea of a single person looking at a law ”
.
I didn’t ignore it. I directly pointed out that that point is total bunk. What happened here is the enforcement of the 14th amendment, something which took a lot more than one person to create.
.
Other people haven’t ignored it. They’ve talked about how the “will of the majority” argument is often used to say that minorities have no rights.
.
We didn’t ignore your point, I think most of us just didn’t believe it was a strong enough point to be worth responding to.
.
August 4, 2010 at 10:15 pm – “My original point in my first post that everyone seems to want to ignore is that I don’t like the idea of a single person looking at a law that the State of California’s Attorney General looked at and found nothing wrong with after people spent thousands of dollars and manhours collecting signatures just to get on the ballot and have it pass. But I guess it’s OK because you got the decision you wanted.”
.
Joel? See here from August 4, 2010 at 9:45 pm –
http://www.peterdavid.net/index.php/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-earth-still-doesnt-open-up-and-swallow-sinful-gay-couples/comment-page-1/#comment-169620
My original point in my first post that everyone seems to want to ignore
No. It was not ignored.
..
It was dealt with, with several different arguments.
..
I note that you have not addressed those arguments, however.
..
That seems…unbalanced.
Oh, and as a man who has been engaged to a black woman and is now married to a hispanic woman and has a son with her all this comparing homosexual marriage to interracial marriage is a giant crock.
Says a man who obviously grew up in the age when interracial marriage was legal in this country.
.
But then, many of your arguments so far have been a ‘giant crock’ as well.
.
Joel, go learn some history and then try and say it’s a giant crock with a straight face.
.
There were laws on the books in this country, laws that were popular with a majority of the people at the time, that would have made your engagement to a black woman (assuming you’re white since you left that out) illegal. Go look up Loving v. Virginia, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and anti-miscegenation laws.
.
Hëll, under some of the anti-miscegenation laws on the books in America you would be breaking the law just by being caught having sex with someone of another race, let alone trying to marry them. So, no, not even a teeny-tiny crock.
Comparing homosexuality, which is a description of a behavior, to ethinicity, which is a benign phenotype, does a disservice to this debate. Believing that homsexuality is “normal” is a philosophical stance and contrary to the majority of the world’s largest religions. I do worry about a society that does not believe God has set any limits on human behavior. I know Peter won’t be convinced unless the earth opens up, but if God did that there would be no one left because he’d have to include all the liars, adulterers, theives, murderers, anyone who has coveted,etc. We would all be gone.
.
Rudy, you have no choice as to what color you will be before birth. Likewise, and despite the most popular conservative myths out there, you don’t choose to be straight or gay. Homosexuality, just like skin color, is something you’re born with.
.
They compare quite well.
I don’t know if I could be considered Gay (maybe if you’re willing to stretch the definition quite a bit), but I’m definitely a person of unorthodox sexual desires. Whether it originated at, or before, birth I can’t really say, but it definitely goes back to early childhood. And while it may be possible to alter my behaviour, I clearly cannot change my desires or my turn-ons, no matter how weird they may be. Trust me on this. And why should anyone have to alter her behaviour, if said behaviour does no harm to others?
“Homosexuality, just like skin color, is something you’re born with.”
Jerry, lets say for argument’s sake you are right, how do you know its not simply a mutation, an aberrancy in their genetic code. People are born all the time with genetic defects ranging from color blindness to bipolar disorder. Simply saying they “are born that way” does not negate this argument. These alleged genes cannot even be passed on to the next generation because homosexuality is incapable of producing offspring.
In reality, our behaviors are a combination of genetics and environment, and it simply is not that cut and dry. We are all born with a certain temperment which can predispose us to certain behaviors but in no way is it precluded that our sexuality is locked in. Sexuality is molded as we grow older and as we approach puberty subconscious ideas and desires for love and affection can be intermingled with the sexual desire. This happens to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. In behavioral genetics you will see common childhood themes in people who share similar sexual appetites. Regardless of one’s “desires”, one should seek to live within the boundaries God has set. Just because I’m heterosexual does not mean I can have sex with just any female, I too must learn to control my desires, and make right choices.
The shame of this, is that supporters of homosexual marriage have taken a complex field like behavioral gentics, and mis-represented it to advance their pet agenda.
.
“Jerry, lets say for argument’s sake you are right, how do you know its not simply a mutation, an aberrancy in their genetic code. People are born all the time with genetic defects ranging from color blindness to bipolar disorder. Simply saying they “are born that way” does not negate this argument. These alleged genes cannot even be passed on to the next generation because homosexuality is incapable of producing offspring.”
.
So you’ll be crusading to take the legal ability to get married away from people with genetic defects ranging from color blindness to bipolar disorder next I assume.
.
“Regardless of one’s “desires”, one should seek to live within the boundaries God has set.”
.
Yeah, see… Here’s the thing. We don’t live in a theocracy. We don’t live in a country where we’ve declared the one, true official religion of the state and set about to make our laws all fall within the guidelines of that religion’s holy book. If that’s the country you want to live in then feel free to move to one of the more repressive Middle Eastern countries. I’m sure you’ll be much happier there.
.
In the mean time we’ll stay in a country where the state hasn’t chosen to become a religious dictatorship.
“I do worry about a society that does not believe God has set any limits on human behavior.”
.
Rudy, and I do worry about a society that needs “gods” to stop people from murdering and stealing.
.
And I must tell you, the way you mix genetics with ironclad Christian dogma scares the hëll out of me.
.
Seriously, I am a little afraid of people like you. The way you talk about a “God” that is like an all-seeing eye eager to regulate every person’s behaviour scares me.
.
God as Big Brother. Nightmare world.
“We don’t live in a theocracy. We don’t live in a country where we’ve declared the one, true official religion of the state and set about to make our laws all fall within the guidelines of that religion’s holy book. If that’s the country you want to live in then feel free to move to one of the more repressive Middle Eastern countries. I’m sure you’ll be much happier there.”
I don’t believe that the state is neutral. It will embrace a moral code of some sort. By not taking sides, the goverment elevates a competing moral code, not a neutral one.
All laws impose a moral code. The question before America is, “Does mankind determine Truth or is there a aboslute Law Giver”.
“Seriously, I am a little afraid of people like you. The way you talk about a ‘God’ that is like an all-seeing eye eager to regulate every person’s behaviour scares me.
.God as Big Brother. Nightmare world.”
Okay. 1. God being God is omniscient. 2. God designed us and has placed restrictions on certain behaviors not because he wants people miserable, but because he knows what will make us truly happy. The same reason you put gas in your car, you’re just following the manufacturer’s instructions.
3. I don’t think you need to even go as far as the religious argument. As articulated elsewhere, the State has a vested interest in seeing that its existence continue into future generations. The most efficient way to do that is by regulating pro-creative unions and encouraging unions that will produce productive citizens. De-valuing the basic family unit ( note: adoptive parents are able to substitute for the biological parents and still maintain the basic family construct. ) is a drastic change in how we seek to maintain our nation.
There are good answers for every objection that is thrown, but I don’t think the people asking are looking for answers. The have their conclusion, and only seek to defend an indefensible position. They are willing to stake everything, especially our nation, on their belief that they are right. This isn’t about a “neutral” morality vs. a “religious” one, it is about competing world views. Who determines what is right and wrong? What does it mean to be human? Is this the only shot at life and then oblivion? I pray America wakes up.
All laws impose a moral code. The question before America is, “Does mankind determine Truth or is there a aboslute Law Giver”.
.
Actually, that question was asked and answered at our nation’s inception. The Founding Fathers wisely included a clause in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that prohibits our government from “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
.
Were I you, I’d be hesitant to break down that wall between church and state. Doing so would endanger your religious freedom as much as anyone else’s. People are fickle, times change, and someday Christianity may not be the dominant religion in this country. Open the door to the government interfering in matters of faith could bite you in the ášš as much as it could anyone else.
.
Besides, if the government legalizes gay marriages, churches won’t be required to sanctify them. People such as yourself won’t be required to condone homosexual behavior. You’ll be free to live your life as you see fit — within reasonable limits — and others will be free to do the same.
.
God designed us and has placed restrictions on certain behaviors not because he wants people miserable, but because he knows what will make us truly happy. The same reason you put gas in your car, you’re just following the manufacturer’s instructions.
.
Here’s where your “manufacturer’s instructions” analogy falls short: if you don’t put gas in your car, it won’t run; but people who engage in homosexual acts don’t simply drop dead as a result.
.
There’s no proof that homosexual marriage is a danger to society. Therefore there’s no reason to deny that civil right to homosexuals, despite what your faith may tell you. Personal faith is after all just that: personal.
and i’m sure you’re not a bigot either right? some of your best friends are gay?
Oy. I’ve stayed out of this because it’s been hashed over and over and I don;t even see the decision as a Big deal, except in that it finally sets up the Supreme Court decision, which is all that will ultimately matter. I think they will have a good chance of also winning there, unless the anti-gay marriage people put up a hëll of a much better argument than we’ve seen thus far. (Seriously–people can whine all they want about the judge being biased but the fact is that Ted Olson and co stomped a mudhole in their opponents.)
.
Rudy, I don’t wish to attack you but I think you will find that all of the worst predictions of what will happen will not come to pass and, in fact, promoting gay marriage will have many benefits that even the harshest critics will recognize.
.
We can argue on whether homosexuality is innate or acquired or any combination of the two. Until and unless we find a b9iological component (and what a can of worms THAT will open up!) this is largely unanswerable. To me it’s a no brainer–as a heterosexual male it is inconceivable (ha!) that one would be attracted to the male body unless this was something you really really felt. The thought of having sex with a guy is revolting. I’m sure you feel the same way. Well then, obviously, a gay man does not have those feelings, so it is NOT the case that people are perversely choosing to do something disgusting.
.
I have a friend who is a gay male and described how sickened he was by the thought of himself…Commingling… (And yeah, he said it with the same tone as the priest in Harold & Maude) with a woman. THAT would be perverse! What possible good would come of it?
.
If we deny gays the ability to settle down with a partner and raise families they will not just stop being gay. They may do what people have done for years–get married and sneak around, make themselves and their innocent spouses and families miserable when the truth gets out, live in fear, engage in desperate one night stands…this is an improvement over the two nice gay guys who live down the road and raise dogs?
.
I’d rather have been raised by two gay men or women than by a husband and wife where one of them had to live a double life.
.
To me it’s a no-brainer. But if you need convincing and if you really don’t like gay people, take comfort in knowing that this will cause at least as much trouble for them as it will happiness. Someone mentioned gay divorce court–wow, hand me the popcorn! And all those poor gays who don’t particularly want to get married will now have to fend off relatives who will be demanding a wedding. And as an added bonus, I suspect that as more and more married gay couples become the face of homosexuals in this country we will see less and less of the kind of stuff that I suspect bothers you tremendously–hairy leather clad men on pink floats, dÿkëš on bikes, Adman Lambert, that kind of thing.
“God designed us and has placed restrictions on certain behaviors not because he wants people miserable, but because he knows what will make us truly happy.”
.
Oh, I see, God wanted me to marry a woman (a gender I have absolutely no physical or sexual attraction for), rather than the man I love, because THAT is what would make me truly happy.
.
Sorry, but your God is kind of an idiot.
My best man at my first wedding was gay. Does that count?
.
Hey, maybe that’s why the marriage ended in divorce. He got his gay cooties on it.
.
PAD
“We can argue on whether homosexuality is innate or acquired or any combination of the two. Until and unless we find a biological component (and what a can of worms THAT will open up!) this is largely unanswerable.”
.
Actually, Bill, they have found a biological component to sexuality. There have been a number of papers published recently that show a demonstrable correlation between neurobiology and sexuality. I’m not a neuroscientist myself, but the gist of it is that areas of a homosexual man’s brain are more similar to a heterosexual woman’s brain than to a heterosexual man’s brain. Ditto for homosexual women. The biology vs. choice argument has been settle pretty definitively by science.
Cap’n Sludge, that stuff is interesting but pretty [preliminary and still begs the question–why are the brains the way they are? It could be genetic or it could be in response to some environmental factors. In theory it could be that being gay changes the brain rather than changes in the brain make you gay (admittedly I can’t see how that would work).
.
A few years ago there was a study that said that birth order payed a big role, that the youngest male child was much more likely to be gay than the oldest. The idea was that a mother’s body acts to reduce the difference in a male embryo and this increases with each birth. But I’m dubious–gay men are not women. Even so called effeminate gay men aren’t really like any woman I know. Take Perez Hilton (please). Do any women you know act like that?
.
I think the twin studies have shown that it can’t be entirely genetic, there must be some other factors at work. But who knows? Most scientists would not touch this with a ten foot poll, you don’t get grants by pìššìņg people off.
“Oh, and as a man who has been engaged to a black woman and is now married to a hispanic woman and has a son with her all this comparing homosexual marriage to interracial marriage is a giant crock.”
.
Translation: I got what I want, screw the rest of you.
As a white man who has been married to a Hispanic woman for twenty years and has a number of children with her, I’ll say no, it is not a crock at all.
While this argument will go on to the Supreme Court, and beyond (Roe v. Wade, anyone?), I think this is a very good step. There’s already lots of celebration from both liberals and couples who want to get married — and lots of straw-dog arguments for conservatives. And the straw-dog arguments about incest and polygamy get trotted out so much because they inspire so much more fear than two consenting, rational adults tying the knot.
(Incidentally, does anyone else think it’s ironic that the Mormon church threw a lot of money into promoting Prop 8 while they themselves support polygamy? As they said on MAD TV: “Brought to you by the Mormon Church, which believes marriage should be a sacred institution between a man and several women.”)
To be fair to the Mormons (a phrase I don’t think that I have ever used before), the official church abandoned polygamy a long time ago. The groups that still practice polygamy are renegade sects that Salt Lake doesn’t recognize.Which doesn’t change the fact that a church shouldn’t be active in any election.
James, the Mormon Church does not REPEAT, does not support polygamy and has not since the end of the 19th century. People who practice it are fringe lunatics who think that it’s a protected religious freedom AND that they will be saved BECAUSE there are multiple marriages in their household. The Church has condemned polygamy publicly several times.
Don’t confuse non-activism as tacit or overt support on an issue, It’s supposed to have been the Utah state government’s (which contrary to “popular” belief is neither a theocracy nor influenced by the Church) responsibility to try to end polygamy in the state, but until the Warren Jeffs case apparently did nothing about
ANNNNNNNNNDDDDDD, because I take too long some one posts a more efficient version (sigh)
All of what you say is true, but I have to dissent on the following: “which contrary to “popular” belief is neither a theocracy nor influenced by the Church.” It is absolutely true that it is the state’s legal responsibility to enforce its laws, and no serious critic or legal scholar thinks Utah is a theocracy. But LDS has a powerful influence over Utah state politics and government, and there are many who are uncomfortable by the amount of influence the Church has on the state’s political and governmental culture.
I’m not implying that the Church is holding the state back from investigating polygamy. I honestly don’t think that’s the case since the rejection of polygamy was a political issue in 1890 and remains one for mainstream LDS.
Here is the deal: What is marriage? Is it just a “partnership” between two individuals? A “permit” to have sex morally? Is it based on the fact that two people love each other?
.
At least according to the headlines, the judge said that heterosexual unions were not inherently superior to homosexual unions. But that can only be true if you remove any concept of reproduction from sex. Where do children factor into all of this? Not that every marriage has to produce children – that is missing the point and dealing with an exception, not the norm (at least historically).
.
The racial bigotry comparison is a false one. A black man can get a white woman pregnant. But two men can’t get pregnant, nor can two women (not naturally). That is why this attempt to redefine marriage ultimately won’t last. If some cataclysm setting us back 200 years and gay marriage would be empty and pointless. Marriage would again be the essential bond it has been in most cultures throughout history – the bond between a man and woman and the child they produce. Divorce, as harmful as it is to kids, hinders the potential and purpose of marriage. Gay unions deny it even being possible.
.
Don’t expect most of you to agree. But the reality is, marriage is what it is – which is more than just an artificial social construct that a judge can dictate. Heterosexual unions are not “superior” to gay unions – heterosexual unions (marriage) are unique because only a heterosexual union is capable of producing a family. That is not a slam on gay unions or a statement that they can’t lovingly raise kids. But kids can only come from a union (physically or in a test tube) or a man and a woman. And that biological connection between a parent and child is something that supersedes artificial conception or even adoption. Again, not a judgment, simply stating what is an increasingly well documented reality.
.
Bottom line: marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Any other union is just that – a union, not a marriage – not in the same way that marriage has been understood inherently and fundamentally for thousands of years. And no ruling of a judge will change that. And that will be a problem for gay marriage — no matter if it is given that name, it won’t fundamentally mean the same thing. Calling a daisy a rose doesn’t make it one.
.
Iowa Jim
Well said.
That would almost be a meaningful argument, except for one small detail: You can procreate without a marriage license. Calling the sex drive “marriage” doesn’t make it all holy and pure. What makes a family takes a lot more work and commitment and emotional entanglement than the union of sperm and egg can ever hope to match. And it is exactly that level commitment that should be celebrated and elevated and worshipped by any right thinking individual and any society that wishes to continue to grow and be relevant. Sanctifying conception as the only valuable component of marriage is to reduce all women to incubators, all men to sperm donors, and all human interaction to nothing more than beasts rutting in the field, driven to reproduce because they know nothing better.
Bottom line: What is more important, Sex or Marriage?
You fundamentally miss the point with your last question.
.
What is the most basic purpose of sex? Reproduction. That doesn’t deny the pleasure or other positive aspects of such a physically intimate act. But that is biologically the function of sex.
.
What happens when a child is conceived? How is the child cared for? How are its rights protected? Sex within marriage is how society has tried to protect those rights. In other words, if sex did not produce children, I am stating that one of the most basic reasons for marriage would be gone.
.
I am not saying conception is the only reason for marriage. But it is so fundamental to marriage that to take it out of the equation is to fundamentally redefine marriage. Yes, we are more than sperm donors and incubators, but you cannot leave that physical reality out of the equation. Even with birth control, there are some conceptions.
.
Iowa Jim
What is the most basic purpose of sex?
.
And yet, Jim, you overlook the most obvious flaw in your argument: you don’t need to be married to have sex.
.
Humans were breeding long before the concept of marriage came along.
.
And, as it has already been pointed out several times, marriage has been redefined repeatedly.
Craig,
.
I probably explained this better in a later reply. You are right. Sex does not have to be between a married couple to produce a child. But what happens then to the child? Who cares for him or her?
.
How did the old saying go? First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes baby in the baby carriage. As you pointed out, yes, you can skip the marriage. So why does it exist? I am arguing that a core reason for marriage is that it protects that child. It establishes who its parents are and acknowledges their responsibility to raise the child.
.
Historically, a child conceived outside of marriage was a bášŧárd with little or no rights. The child did not unite families or carry on a family name. How unfair to the child.
.
Iowa Jim
You are right. Sex does not have to be between a married couple to produce a child. But what happens then to the child?
.
People worship him for two thousand years and then get really judgmental about other people?
.
PAD
“You are right. Sex does not have to be between a married couple to produce a child. But what happens then to the child? ”
Maybe he’s adopted by a committed gay couple who take care of him as loving parents.
First comes love, then comes marriage,
and
Historically, a child conceived outside of marriage was a bášŧárd with little or no rights.
.
Historically, love had nothing to do with marriage until very recently in human history. Hence, marriage has been redefined, hence your argument that it shouldn’t be redefined now is not holding up.
.
We’ve all gone rounds on this before, and, in the end, nothing has changed: it’s the same flawed arguments. It really seems to come down to the fact that a great number of people are against gay marriage simply because a book tells them they should be.
“And that biological connection between a parent and child is something that supersedes artificial conception or even adoption.”
As an adoptee, I’m going to have to request that you kiss my ášš.
You too, Rudy.
On further reflection, I’d like some clarification on this special club of parents you’re talking about, Jim. You’ve established that only parents with children who were conceived during the sex act qualify for membership, but I’m wondering: Is it any sex act, or are there further restrictions? Like, any position, or just missionary? What about a situation where, the sex is anal, but the man pulls out and comes in the woman’s vágìņá? What if he does so accidentally? What if, as Bill Hicks so eloquently put it, he’s jërkìņg øff and she sits on it at the last minute?
.
Inquiring minds are eager to know.
This inquiring mind sure doesn’t. Yeeesh.
.
Loved the “as an adoptee” post, though.
.
PAD
If you take Iowa Jim’s argument out to the next level, then anyone who is married should not be allowed to use contreception of any kind.
If you take Iowa Jim’s argument out to the next level, then anyone who is married should not be allowed to use contreception of any kind.
.
What do you mean, next level? There’s tons of people who already believe that and preach that.
.
PAD
Michael, you miss my point. The reality I refer to is demonstrated by most of my friends who were adopted. While they love their adopted parents, they often are driven to learn about their biological parents. The anonymous sperm donor kids that were conceived 15 or 20 years ago are now wondering about their biological parent.
.
Iowa Jim
Michael, I am not talking about a special class or parents. My point is that marriage is, in a large (but not exclusive) part designed to protect the rights of the children conceived by the act of sex. Adoption recognizes this by transferring that responsibility to raise and protect to the adoptive parents.
.
My fundamental point does not deal with whether a gay couple can be good parents. I am simply arguing that the very purpose of marriage is an institution designed, in part, to protect the rights of the kids conceived in such a union. While not the only purpose, it is definitely a unique purpose that gay unions are incapable of doing. So why call them marriage? In at least one very crucial aspect, they will never be the same as heterosexual marriages. That is not denying a right — it is observing reality.
.
Iowa Jim
.
“Bottom line: marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Any other union is just that – a union, not a marriage – not in the same way that marriage has been understood inherently and fundamentally for thousands of years. “
.
Well, since marriage has been understood inherently and fundamentally for thousands of years as civil contracts, unions to show alliances between families, clans and countries, the closing of certain deals, a joining of three or more partners, an arranged pairing where the married couple had no say in the choice of their spouse, etc, etc, etc… What are you talking about exactly?
.
“Not that every marriage has to produce children – that is missing the point and dealing with an exception, not the norm (at least historically).”
.
Fine, it’s the exception and not the norm. That still creates two problems with your argument. If you believe that marriage is for making babies than that’s what you have marriage for. If your POV is that the people who cannot have children are statistically outside of the norm than you should have no problem having laws passed that ban marriage for people who are unable to have children. After all, it won’t inconvenience too many people and it will insure that all marriages are following God’s plan.
.
You should also be righteously condemning people like Rush Limbaugh, that anti-gay marriage crusader who is on his 4th or 5th marriage (because he believes in the sanctity of the heterosexual union) and has for a long time now stated that he didn’t want to have kids of his own. We should pass Prop 8s against those heterosexual people who can have children but enter into marriage determined not to have any. Hey, they’re taking perfectly good breeding stock out of circulation and flouting God’s plan, right?
.
Besides, if comparatively small numbers means nothing to you than gay marriage shouldn’t be an issue. The gay population in the general population is a minority. In that minority you have, as you’ll find in the heterosexual majority, members that don’t want to get married. So you’ll have a situation where not even the total membership of that minority wants to be married and thus a, compared to the total heterosexual marriages out there, statistically insignificant number of marriages. They would be “an exception, not the norm” and thus no different that your example.
See my comments above. Your first point illustrates what I argued. Why would marriage be an alliance? Because it produces offspring that come from both clans. Why do parents set up an arranged marriage for their children? It is, in part, to produce off spring (uniting the families). Almost all of the reasons you gave are intimately tied to the fact that marriage leads to children.
.
Regarding those who can’t (or don’t want to have) children, keep in mind that it is only in the last few years, historically speaking, that not having a kid was thought to be a good or desirable thing. And it is only in very recent history that we knew why people were unable to have children. So most who got married, did so with the expectation and hope that they would have children.
.
Which goes back to my earlier point. If sex did not run the risk of having children, then marriage would indeed be no different than any other “partnership” and gay unions would inherently be no different. My argument is focusing on the uniqueness of male / female marriage. It is one that produces children (in most cases short of intervention such as birth control). Keep in mind too that it is only in very recent history that people lived long enough that marrying after child bearing years has become somewhat common.
.
Iowa Jim
.
“See my comments above. Your first point illustrates what I argued. Why would marriage be an alliance? Because it produces offspring that come from both clans. Why do parents set up an arranged marriage for their children? It is, in part, to produce off spring (uniting the families). Almost all of the reasons you gave are intimately tied to the fact that marriage leads to children.”
.
You need to study your history better. There were marriages like those I mentioned above where children were an afterthought to the primary reason for the contract. There have been marriages of these sorts in history where the married couple only ever saw each other once in a blue moon and passed there time with (and occasionally had children with) their lovers. Some of these marriages were even in the European culture that America got most of its traditions from.
.
“Regarding those who can’t (or don’t want to have) children, keep in mind that it is only in the last few years, historically speaking, that not having a kid was thought to be a good or desirable thing. And it is only in very recent history that we knew why people were unable to have children. So most who got married, did so with the expectation and hope that they would have children.”
…..
“My argument is focusing on the uniqueness of male / female marriage. It is one that produces children (in most cases short of intervention such as birth control). Keep in mind too that it is only in very recent history that people lived long enough that marrying after child bearing years has become somewhat common.”
.
Fine, Jim. Now, since you now know that we can determine these things and that lifespans are now such that we can see what you’re describing; when are you and your pals going to start protesting for laws and constitutional amendments to stop those people from getting married in order to preserve the sanctity of and God’s true reason for marriage?
.
Hey, let’s be honest here, you either believe in what you’re saying or you don’t. You’re either being honest in your convictions or you’re not. If you say that gays can’t get married because they can’t produce children (they can however adopt or, as did Kat Cora and her partner last year, find a donor and get pregnant) but you then turn around and say that it’s fine for straight couples to get married knowing in advance that they have no ability or, even better, that they have the ability but not the desire to produce children…
.
Well, let’s just say that your hypocrisy is showing. Big time.
.
“And that biological connection between a parent and child is something that supersedes artificial conception or even adoption. Again, not a judgment, simply stating what is an increasingly well documented reality.”
.
Don’t get out much, do you?
Morgan and Megan, my adopted twin Cambodian nieces, would, i’m pretty sure, disagree with you.
For that matter, my cousin Myong-Hui might have a few choice words on the matter – and she can have quite a sharp tongue, having learned from her adoptive parents Fred and Ok-Cha…
Not that every marriage has to produce children – that is missing the point and dealing with an exception, not the norm (at least historically).
.
On the one hand you say marriage is the exclusive domain of heterosexuals because only heterosexual couples can naturally produce children. On the other hand you condone childless heterosexual marriages because they’re not “the norm.” You can’t eat your cake and have it too, Iowa Jim. Either marriages are about procreation, which leaves out anyone who can’t or won’t have kids, or else they’re about two adults making a commitment to each other, in which case you have provided no rational basis for excluding homosexuals.
.
The racial bigotry comparison is a false one.
.
No, it’s not. You are using many of the same sorts of arguments that racists once used to justify anti-miscegenation laws. Do you really want to be in that kind of company?
.
Marriage would again be the essential bond it has been in most cultures throughout history – the bond between a man and woman and the child they produce.
.
Marriage has been many things through the centuries. The idea that marriage is an act of free will between two individuals is a recent innovation.
.
Divorce, as harmful as it is to kids, hinders the potential and purpose of marriage. Gay unions deny it even being possible.
.
Please provide one shred of evidence that gay marriages will reduce the frequency and stability of heterosexual marriages for the purpose of raising families.
.
And that biological connection between a parent and child is something that supersedes artificial conception or even adoption. Again, not a judgment, simply stating what is an increasingly well documented reality.
.
As someone who was adopted as a baby, I find that statement as offensive as it is false. I challenge you to provide one single shred of objectively researched scientific evidence to back up your claim.
“that biolgical connection between a parent and child is something that supersedes artificial conception or even adoption”
Really? What if one or both of those biologically connected people is an axe-murderer? An abusive alcoholic? Or just an áššhølë?
And will someone please explain this nasty argument that implies that my marriage has less of a point, less “purpose” because my wife and I aren’t comitted to having kids? We figure if we do we could make pretty good parents, but if we don’t is dosn’t make our lives any less special or important.
The purpose of my marriage was to commit to a wonderful, supportive woman who’s smarter than me and who I want to see first thing every morning forever.
If ANY two people have that – what more is needed to make it real?
Bill,
.
Sorry, I don’t buy your either/or argument. As I stated above in different terms, marriage is multifaceted. That can be acknowledged while realizing that many of the core functions of marriage are designed not to produce children (that happens with the simple act of sex between a man and woman of child bearing age) but to protect the children that are conceived. Why is adultery generally seen as bad? Why, historically, have bášŧárd children been mistreated? It was not their fault, yet they suffered as the result of being conceived without parents committed to both taking care of their progeny.
.
Regarding racism, you seem to ignore my actual point. There is a fundamental anatomical difference between a man and a woman. A man can never give birth to a child. A woman can never conceive apart from a man’s sperm. (That is why the Virgin birth is seen by Christians as a miracle.) So two men or two women are fundamentally different than a man and a woman in that they can never conceive naturally. Unless you arbitrarily ignore the basic function of sex in the first place, you can’t deny this gender difference. And that is what makes this different than just the color of skin issue. Men and women ARE different. Racism, in contrast, is focused on one being superior to the other. That is why I argued with the judge’s terminology. Marriage between a man and a woman is unique, not superior. There is a difference.
.
Your next two points are not relevant and miss the point I am making. And you also misunderstand my point about adoption. Just Google adoption impact on children and you will find plenty of research about how many (though not all) adopted children suffer a strong sense of loss of not knowing their biological parent. I am not saying adoption is bad or harmful to a child (as I stated above in another reply). I am saying that it is not possible for adoption to replace the unique role of the biological parent.
.
Iowa Jim
Sorry, I don’t buy your either/or argument. As I stated above in different terms, marriage is multifaceted. That can be acknowledged while realizing that many of the core functions of marriage are designed not to produce children (that happens with the simple act of sex between a man and woman of child bearing age) but to protect the children that are conceived.
.
You’re right. It’s not an “either-or” issue, and I was wrong to phrase the argument in those terms. Nevertheless, I reiterate: when it comes to defining marriage, you can’t eat your cake and have it to, which is exactly what you’re trying to do.
.
You’ve argued that marriage is inherently heterosexual because only heterosexuals can reproduce. Yet you’re willing to allow exceptions for senior citizens, sterile couples, and couples who have no intention of having children — as long as they’re heterosexual couples. If heterosexuals can marry for reasons other than creating and caring for offspring, why should that right be denied to homosexuals? You have yet to answer that question in any meaningful way.
.
If we’re going to deny a civil right to a group of people and relegate them to second-class citizenship, we’d dámņëd well better have an airtight and compelling reason for doing so. Insofar as you haven’t articulated a single reason why gay marriage would be harmful to anyone, you haven’t even come close to meeting that burden.
.
Why is adultery generally seen as bad?
.
Because it’s the breaking of a solemn promise made to another person. But what does that have to do with marriage being inherently heterosexual?
.
Why, historically, have bášŧárd children been mistreated?
.
Because there’s a tendency to discriminate against those who are different, much like proponents of Prop 8 want to do.
.
Marriage between a man and a woman is unique, not superior. There is a difference.
.
There is no such thing as “separate, but equal.” To deny homosexuals the right to marry, and all the legal privileges that come with marriage, is to say that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones.
.
Just Google adoption impact on children and you will find plenty of research about how many (though not all) adopted children suffer a strong sense of loss of not knowing their biological parent.
.
I Googled “adoption ‘and’ abandonment issues” and found a lot of anecdotal stories, but no statistics about the prevalance of this problem. I need to do more research, but it certainly seems that this phenomenon is not as well-documented as you believe.
.
I am not saying adoption is bad or harmful to a child (as I stated above in another reply). I am saying that it is not possible for adoption to replace the unique role of the biological parent.
.
Speaking as an adoptee, I can tell you that I experienced no feelings of abandonment as a child. My adoptive parents are my real parents, and I have no desire to find my biological parents.
.
Biology doesn’t inherently create stable family units, anyway. My girlfriend has worked for the child protective unit in the county in which we live, and I could tell you many, many stories of parents who neglect and/or abuse their biological children. In some cases, biological parents treat their children so badly that the only way to ensure the future safety and well-being of the children is to remove them from the clutches of their biological parents.
.
Biology does not a parent make, Iowa Jim. What makes a parent is a commitment to lovingly provide for the physical, emotional, and intellectual needs of a child. Some parents do a horrible job with their biological children, while others do a fantastic job of raising children not of their blood.
The daisy/rose comparison is a false one because it doesn’t describe a contract. Marriage is, and always has been, a legal contract. No amount of acrobatics or romanticizing it nchanges that.
What is the point of the legal contract? Is not one very major component the responsibility to raise the children conceived within that marriage? And for the property of the parents to go to that child or children?
.
Gay unions cannot conceive a child. Hence, they are fundamentally different than a heterosexual marriage.
.
Iowa Jim
Gay unions cannot conceive a child. Hence, they are fundamentally different than a heterosexual marriage.
.
Senior citizens cannot conceive a child. Hence their marriages are fundamentally different from a heterosexual marriage.
.
A woman who had her tubes tied cannot conceive a child. Hence her marriage is fundamentally different from a heterosexual marriage.
.
A man has a vasectomy in his youth and marries five times. All his marriages were fundamentally different from a heterosexual marriage.
,
Meanwhile…to reinterpret a favorite dodge…a brother and sister can procreate. Hence a brother and sister marrying would be fundamentally the same as any other heterosexual marriage, and thus should be legal.
.
Tying the validity of a marriage to the ability to procreate is inherently ridiculous.
.
PAD
You know, Jim, I checked over our marriage license, and double checked the marriage vows–the only accurate and measurable basis of the contract–and no, there’s nothing in there about kids. So it seems the contract argument doesn’t hold up.
.
PAD
“What is the point of the legal contract? Is not one very major component the responsibility to raise the children conceived within that marriage? And for the property of the parents to go to that child or children?”
.
The point of the legal contract is to allow the federal government the ability to know the number of households, and income generators and resource consumers within those households.
.
This is why there are tax benefits for married couples that are not shared by unmarried couples who live together.
.
The government assumes that a married couple who has two residences could live together if they chose, so one of those residences is unnecessary. But, if a couple living in the same residence are unmarried, then they may at any given momment need a second residence, and so they are taxed differently.
.
Marriage is, in our culture, a financial and governmental contract. Not an emotional and/or religious one. If it were, you would need a priest and the justice would be optional, not the other way around.
.
Theno
“And that biological connection between a parent and child is something that supersedes artificial conception or even adoption. Again, not a judgment, simply stating what is an increasingly well documented reality.”
.
A- I don’t know what you mean by “artificial conception”. A child born through in vitro fertilization is exactly and precisely identical to a child born from regular sex. Except that they are, on average, likely to be better treated since it is demonstrably true that it costs a fortune and a lot of effort to have a child in vitro and wanted children tend to be better off than unwanted children. So there’s that.
.
B- Unless you have an adopted child and love them less than your non-adopted child, you have no idea what you are talking about. Or perhaps I have misinterpreted your statement. I hope that is the case.
See my reply above. I am sorry I was not more clear. My point is that there is always a tie between a child and his or her biological parent. There is no doubt that adopted parents love their children. But I know many adopted children who struggle with why their biological parent gave them up for adoption, or who want to meet and know their biological parent. Some of my friends who have adopted have gone through hëll because of the struggles their child has felt over this issue. They loved their adopted child, but the adopted child could not overcome the feelings of abandonment. This is obviously not true in every case, but it is an undeniable reality in some cases. And virtually every adopted person I know has some sense of loss concerning their biological parent.
.
Iowa Jim
I can only speak from my own limited experience. My oldest daughter says she has zero interest in finding out how her biological mom is doing. Frankly, I rather hope she changes her mind as I would like to thank her but I’m not going to pursue this against my daughter’s wishes.
.
Then again, we we always, from day 1, open with her about being adopted and all that, so there was no mystery. I’d recommend that to anyone else adopting.
.
Among those friends I know who are adopted (and it amazed me when we adopted my daughter how many people came out of the woodwork who I never knew were adopted) the problems you state seem to be very much in the minority. I hope anyone considering adoption will not assume that it is laden with problems; it has been one of the most rewarding events in my life.
.
But even if we accept the larger premise, that gay marriages are inherently inferior to straight ones because they cannot conceive a child without now easily available methods–so what? The question is, are they SO inferior as to require suppression? I have seen many marriages that were Doomed From The Start but it ain’t my business to demand they be thwarted. Even accepting for argument your point, the good that will come out of this “flawed” marriage seems more than adequate to me. And it certainly is vastly outweighed by the harm done by treating a loving couple as second class citizens.
.
But even if we accept the larger premise, that gay marriages are inherently inferior to straight ones because they cannot conceive a child without now easily available methods–so what? The question is, are they SO inferior as to require suppression?
.
For that matter, why not take it to the next level? I mean, if the government can rule who can marry and who can’t…then shouldn’t it be argued that anyone should be capable of having their right to marry taken from them?
.
Think about it: If you establish yourself as a reckless driver, the state can take away your right to drive. So…what if you’re a serial adulterer, sleeping with dozens of people out of wedlock? What if you’re an abusive spouse? What if you’re an alcoholic whose drinking has already shattered your previous family and you’re thinking about remarrying?
.
Why should your right to marry be elevated above someone who is sober, monogamous, and would rather die than lift a hand against a loved one? Why shouldn’t the state or Fed be allowed to say, “You’re not allowed to marry; you’ve abused the privilege.”
.
PAD
Let’s take it further still; A- Since the most important part of marriage is the part regarding children and B- heterosexual marriage is the only one that can conceive a child then C- it is HETEROSEXUAL marriages that we should be focusing our regulatory muscles on, like a laser beam. Forget the gays; their marriage will die with them but a bad heterosexual marriage can produce children who might get royally screwed up by their parent’s problems.
.
Advocate the government being active in regulating marriage for the sake of future generations and it’s just a slippery slope back to the eugenics crowd (many of whom were progressive thinkers with, I’m sure, the very best of intentions.)
.
Iowa Jim, I like you, but I swear you have managed to push a lot of personal buttons. I have an adopted daughter who is exactly and precisely as much a part of me as my biological one (and managed to avoid the flat feet) and my second marriage is to a woman who cannot have children and is exactly and precisely as valid a marriage as if I had married the Octomom (with the added benefit that I am not currently trying to kill myself).
.
The collateral damage it will take to stop gay marriage is far worse than any dubious benefit I can imagine.
“My point is that there is always a tie between a child and his or her biological parent.”
.
And, as others have pointed out, your point is faulty.
.
I am friendly toward my biological father. I could care less if I ever hear from my biological mother ever again.
.
And, I was raised by them. So, they aren’t just my biological parents, but my actual parents.
.
Maybe you have a tie between yourself and your parents. And, maybe you hope that there will always be a tie between your children and yourself. But, you are not indicitave of everyone. And, it is insulting that you so adamantly claim to be.
.
Theno
Jim: Thanks so much for pointing out that my connection with MY children (both adopted) is somehow inferior to another parent’s connection with his children (biological). I’m so glad you have an ounce of understanding of me and my family.
.
And thanks for not judging me, my marriage, or my family. If you could go get stuffed, I’d sure appreciate it. No judgment or ill-will meant, of course.
I don’t really understand your argument, Jim. Even buying your argument that procreation is one of the purposes of marriage, does a blind man not have eyes? Does a deaf man not have ears? Is a broken refrigerator no longer a refrigerator? If I play baseball without an audience and without keeping score, am I still not playing baseball? If something doesn’t fulfill one (or even all) of its intended purposes, we don’t stop calling it by its name. Just like a marriage is still a marriage even if it cannot fulfill one of its (alleged) purposes.
As a woman, I’m extremely thankful that marriage has evolved beyond it’s initial, ideal purpose. Not that I don’t have some desire to procreate, but more that I’m happy I won’t be traded like property. And as for your later “love” argument? Do you really think that love has much to do at all with the history of marriage?
You know, I’ve seen the idea bandied about that love and marriage or even romantic love in general is some kind of new development…and I think that’s pretty doubtful. You can find all sorts of examples of love in ancient history, this is not some new emotion that just cropped up among we civilized modern hipsters. And the desire to spend one’s life with someone you love also seems unlikely to be an idea that is of recent origin.
.
Kings and queens and warlords may have had their marriages mostly based on making alignments and getting land or whatever but I doubt that this was much of an issue with the approximately 99.97% of the remaining population. Of course, nobody wrote much about them. (It’s fairly appalling how many really important things we DON’T know about ancient cultures, even those with as much written evidence as the Romans)
.
Since the institution of marriage predates written history and exists in almost every society we know (and doubtless existed in many that we will never know about) it seems presumptuous for us to assume too much.
Oops. Will try not to post again while watching Castle. Sorry for the typos and one jump in thought. I think the main point is clear as is so won’t try to correct.
.
Iowa Jim
I honestly don’t get the hubbub with people protesting this. Hey, if two consenting adults wanna do amorous things to each other and want a piece of paper and shell out some cash to the gummy-mint for the aforementioned piece of paper to legitimize it, why not? More money for the country. It ain’t your problem if they aren’t doing it to you. Or in front of you. Well, y’know what I mean.
Adam marries Steve. How is that your problem whatsoever? How does that negatively affect you? I mean, c’mon. Half of marriages end in divorce anyway, so it’ll make the whole argument irrelevant for 50% of the people getting hitched anyway.
Wanna protest something? How about the income gap between rich and poor, and people still living in poverty. Actual human considerations that are actually relevant.
I’m estatic that my partner and I will be able to get married now. However, I do want to point out that the incest fight may be closer than you think due to a phenomenon called Genestic Sexual Attraction (or GSA for short – I only know about this due to the same abbreviation for the Gay Straight Alliance!)
Basically, GSA occurs with family members that were separated for most of their lives, are reunited, and have romantic feelings for each other. If you go to http://www.geneticsexualattraction.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1693&highlight=prop you will see that those who frequent that message board are going to be looking closely at how this decision is worded.
I’m sure the fight is still a ways off, but it’s going to come eventually. I could go into the reasons I’ve read on there, but I’ve got to get going!
Being a religious conservative, this decision will never sit well with me. Sure, there’s the whole, “homosexuality is sin” argument. People tell me that you can’t legislate morality, but that’s exactly what this ruling does. It lifts gay unions to the same plane as heterosexual unions and places it as an acceptable societal norm.
.
Before all you liberals wet your pants in a rush to condemn my beliefs, realize that I also have a problem with the state sanctioning marriages of any kind. In my opinion marriage is strictly the domain of the church and should be out of the government’s power to define.
I applaud your honesty, and even as a diehard Socialist can support you in both of your positions.
Except.
I was not married by a religious institution. Being of different faiths, my wife and I felt it would be improper to have one or the other perform the ceremony. And even then I could care less what the Government thought, except that I have a wife, and we have shared economic intests, and we have children that have to be cared for as a family unit. We are a nation of laws, and as long as those laws determine who gets my money when I die, who gets to visit me in the hospital, and a host of other things, then we need a way of defining “a family” within that framework of laws. A baseline that everyone can agree to and knows is in effect no matter what Volcano Mountain Spirit of Choice you happen to pray to.
Would that we could simply argue for “Religious Unions” that are just like marriages, except, you know, not called that. Then everybody would be happy, right?
No, some people just aren’t happy unless they can consider themselves better than others.
Well stated. We were married by a Justice of the Peace, no Volcano Mountain Spirits in sight. No superpowered beings of any kind – except for our Incredible Hulk wedding invitations. 🙂
No, some people just aren’t happy unless they can consider themselves better than others.
.
Which is really annoying to those of us who genuinely ARE better than others.
.
PAD
In my opinion marriage is strictly the domain of the church and should be out of the government’s power to define.
Which wasn’t how marriage started out, of course. It was strictly secular.
WHy is this change important and to be retained?
In fact, from at least the time of Paul’s Epistles up until the 14th Century, the Church declined to deal in marriage. They expected the Rapture any minute now, and did not want to be involved in worldly matters.
.
It wasn’t until a French nobleman insisted on having his marriage consecrated by the local bishop that the Church fathers realized what a cash cow they’d been missing out on, and began requiring that any Church members who got married had to do so through their auspices (and consequently began dealing with questions like who could get married, how many could get married, and whether or not divorce was permissible).
.
Further, until late in the 18th Century, marriage for love in the Western world (especially among the upper classes) was considered foolish at best. (See the works of Jane Austen for examples.) Marriages were dynastic in nature, intended to unite powerful families or secure financial interests of daughters (who could not inherit directly – it seemed obvious to everyone at the time that women simply could not be trusted with money; without a man’s guidance, she would fritter it away or be easily duped out of it). One hoped that love would follow, but it was understood that sometimes it did not.
.
In short, the form of marriage we know today. the one that has allegedly been with us “for thousands of years,” actually dates back less than two centuries. Before that, one can find examples of almost every marriage pattern imaginable (although polyandrous marriage was only common in parts of Tibet). Sorry, if you want to appeal to antiquity, y’all gonna need better arguments than that. (And appeals to “morality” are going to run headlong into the fact that the exact same arguments were used against interracial marriage when I was a kid. Just substitute “interracial” for “gay” in every anti- argument I’ve heard, and it’s an echo of relatively recent history…)
See, whereas I think the church stuck its nose into marriage where it had no business being there.
.
PAD
If people choose to have a church sanctioned wedding who are we to complain? “The Church” is people, just like Soylent green.
.
If i had a choice between the various religions (and non-religions) being in charge of marriage or the State…I’d choose the religions. Because I can choose my religion or lack thereof. Pretty much stuck with one State though. I like to keep my options open.
The Church didn’t deal in marriages from the time epistles until until about 300 years ago?
.
That’s just patently wrong. The pastoral epistles deal with marriage in regards to church leadership.
.
The Gregorian Reforms instituted by Gregory VII forced divorce on all married priests.
.
Kings and prominent nobles had to get divorces approved by the Pope. Henry VIII’s divorce directly led to to England leaving the Catholic faith because he couldn’t get such approval.
.
Martin Luther’s marriage represented his break with Rome being irreversible. For the record, Luther didn’t believe in church sanctioning of marriage, most likely as an overreaction to Rome’s abuse of power in everyday life.
.
John Calvin dealt extensively with marriage in his Institutes of the Christian Religion and it was under his influence that Geneva required both the state and the church recognize marriage. This was the first modern requirement for state recognition of marriage that I’m aware of. I’m sure there are earlier examples, but it was the spread of Calvinism that really got the ball rolling on state involvement.
The 14th century was 300 years ago?
The shame of this, is that supporters of homosexual marriage have taken a complex field like behavioral gentics, and mis-represented it to advance their pet agenda.
What? That gay people are human? And that humans have basic rights THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO POPULAR VOTE?
—
Ðámņ right that’s a shame that people are using “will of the people” to determine who is human and who isn’t.
.
No Roger, they’re not trying to determine who is human and who isn’t. They’re not trying to determine for everybody else who is worthy human and who isn’t.
Not to sound arbitrary, but I’ve never been under the impression that marriage was a “basic right.” Aid when in poverty, yes. Health care, yes. An arbitrary measure such as marriage? Not so much.
This whole shebang should’ve been privatized. Of course that’s been covered above, but just restating the view. To quote something somebody once said, “The best compromise is the one that makes everyone unhappy.
Blaise- The problem is not that it is being considered a basic right, but that the Federal and State governments grant privileges, rights and responsibilities to married people that are not granted to unmarried ones.
These include (but are not restricted to) tax breaks, inheritance rights, power of medical attorney, ability to visit injured partners, even parental rights in some areas.
The basic right is not just to say you are married, but to be able to enjoy the same rights granted to others under the law.
Currently marriage vs limited civil unions (or denial of said unions) is the separate water fountain people are trying to deny exists.
Blaise, the Supreme Court’s Loving decision stated quite clearly that marriage is a civil right of the people.
One assumption I’m seeing in the “redefinition of marriage” argument, at least as articulated here, is that the current definition of marriage is a legitimization of the union of a breeding pair.
.
Um, says who? As I was growing up, I was taught that marriage was a commitment between two people who love each other. Procreation didn’t really enter into it. Then again, my mom and dad couldn’t procreate together, and had to adopt. Is their marriage (41 years and counting as of this writing) a sham? Is my family a lie? That’s not a rhetorical question; the answer is “no.” My family is just as valid as any other; we’re bound by the same emotional bonds, forged by the same experiences, defined by the same love as any “natural” family. If one of us bleeds, the rest of us cry. If one of us dies, the rest of us mourn. If one of us triumphs, the rest of us exult.
.
As the old song goes, we are family. It’s about more than blood; it’s about, as a friend of mine once said, the place where, when you go there, they have to take you in.
.
My point, and I do have one, is this: Marriage and family already are broadly defined. No church, no college, no government has dominion over their definition.
.
For anyone who has a problem with that, I refer you to my last post in this thread.
Don’t expect most of you to agree. But the reality is, marriage is what it is – which is more than just an artificial social construct that a judge can dictate. Heterosexual unions are not “superior” to gay unions – heterosexual unions (marriage) are unique because only a heterosexual union is capable of producing a family. That is not a slam on gay unions or a statement that they can’t lovingly raise kids. But kids can only come from a union (physically or in a test tube) or a man and a woman. And that biological connection between a parent and child is something that supersedes artificial conception or even adoption. Again, not a judgment, simply stating what is an increasingly well documented reality.
JIm, no offense, but’s that IS a judgement (to a large part because it’s factually wrong), not to mention horribly insulting. I really think you need to think about this some more (maybe do some studying of history, hm?) and try again. You’re starting from bad premises and, therefore, going to bad places.
See, I must be a moron, because I see this as a very simple process.
.
If people want to do something and it’s not hurting anyone else then why can’t you leave ’em the hëll alone?
.
Gays aren’t out recruiting, they aren’t in schools proselytizing, they aren’t kidnapping people to forcibly (or even subtly) convert them – they’re living together happily.
.
Oh, and as for citing religious sources – if God is all powerful, why does He need YOU to speak for Him?
.
I remain,
Sincerely,
Eric L. Sofer
x<]:o){
The Bad Clown…
wait… we aren’t recruiting? then what am i supposed to do with all these tshirts and baked goods? i hate it when i miss a memo.
Now I really want some gay pie.
Ooo, send me a flyer! Nothing as yummy as those gay baked pies!
Shhh! You might make someone think!
I wanted to thank everyone for their support on gay marriage. I have never read such well thought out discussions and opinions. I wish our politicians were as smart and informed as many of you.
My Partner (husband, lifespouse, civil unionzied man…) and I will be going on 11 years being together.
My goal (agenda) is to just enjoy love and life with my spouse.
I think the guy who said government should stay out of the marriage needs to do a little research. If Government gave up charging people for marriage licenses and stopped giving tax breaks and different tax codes for married couples and families, then all us gays would just get together and create our own valid religion and our marriages would be just as legit as catholics, muslims, jews and whomever.
So hopefully in this utopia if my husband gets sick and I want to stay by his side at the hospital, the muslim or christian nurse will respect our religious marriage and not call the cops or security to remove me. Of course what happens if my husband dies and I try and collect his social security or military benefits? Is that something religions will take over or will the government still have to be involved?
hmmmmm sounds like taking government out of marriage would be impossible since there are many legal and official issues that the law (not religion) has to deal with.
Well, why are married people getting tax breaks? You’d think the government was trying to endorse a particular lifestyle (marriage), which seems a bit out of its bounds to do.
As for the other things, I wish marriage was removed as a basis for those kind of decisions. Social security benefits, hospital visits, etc really should be decided by the person, not by the government.
It’s one of the few things I adopt a libertarian stance on. After all, somebody who just doesn’t want to deal with the rigamarole of marriage has to deal with these obstacles too, regardless of how much they love their partner. The whole thing strikes me as unfair.
>>PAD I bring up polygamy and incest because it will be the next fight before the courts.
.
>No. It really won’t.
.
Really? It’s already rearing it’s head up here in Canada. There’s a big case out in BC and a foursome just got married here in Ottawa. Are you really sure it won’t in the US? The old saw of “give an inch take a mile” exists for a reason. If you think I’m exaggerating, sit in on ANY labour negotiation. It’s human nature. Give someone something and either they, or someone else, will eventually want more. Wherefore, before any law is passed, it needs to be examined as to “where will it all end”. It’s hard to come up with something that’s so outrageous or silly that someone won’t actually go for it. Again I’m exaggerating? Go back in time 40 years and tell people a government department was going to look at banning smoking in someone’s home if they used it as an office. You’d probably get laughed out of the room. Yet that’s exactly what a government department or agency looked at doing a few years ago before they were stopped in their tracks. We’d do well to remember musical satirist Tom Lehrer’s parting words when he retired. He felt he couldn’t go on because reality was getting stranger than anything he could come up with. And it hasn’t gotten any better since.
really? hadn’t heard about Ottawa, can you provide links to this phenomenon.
Are you talking about the Bountiful BC case?
That has nothing to do with gays being allowed to be married, it has to the right of religious freedom as outlined in the Charter
Canada allowed Gay marriage in 2005. BC legalised it in 2003
In 1990, a B.C. police investigation recommended charges be laid in Bountiful but the Crown received legal opinions that the polygamous ban would be struck down as a “unjustifiable infringement of religious freedom.”
So the charges of a slippery slope is false. Also as far as I know the Bountiful are not asking for each wife to have the same legal rights as each other they just want to be not arrested.
The foursome aren’t advertising for obvious reasons. The only ‘link’ I have is personal. No, I’m not one of them. But at the same time I know it isn’t merely hearsay.
As for the BC case, the police investigation dates back to 1990. Yet it wasn’t taken to court until after the courts legalized the other unions. Sounds like too much of a coincidence for there not to be SOME element of “well, they got lucky, maybe we will, too”.
@StarWolf – no, it REALLY won’t. Gay marriage is gonna cause a flood of people wanting to marry their own siblings and family members? This is so dumb it isn’t even worth talking about.
There’s “a” big case in Canada. Fine. It’s a freakshow case. Whatever. There aren’t millions of people queing up to have a crack at it.
Where was the word “flood” used? But please show me where it is dumb to point out the law is made of PRECEDENTS. And once a precedent is in place, it can be awfully hard to change it. Too, I wouldn’t so sure as to numbers. A dear friend is a retired psychiatrist and he’ll gladly tell anyone who cares to listen that what many consider ‘normal’ is not nearly as common as many people would care to think. Troikas? Polygamy? Other deviations from what many may consider ‘normal’? A lot more of it out there than you might believe. Just because you’re not seeing it doesn’t mean there aren’t people who aren’t thinking about it. They’re just not acting on it. But, given a change in the law and … who knows? Honestly? I don’t care either way. Just pointing out that people have a habit of rushing into things without always thinking about possible *unintended* consequences.
Wow, now that gay people can marry in California, I want to find my sister and ask her to marry me.
Oh no, wait, that would be INSANE.
Unless, y’know, she’s really hot… 🙂
I just wanted to make a few points.
.
There’s no reason to support gay marriage because homosexuality exists in animals. First off, there are no legally binding marriage ceremonies between animals. Referencing the animal kingdom might build a case for the legalization of homosexual practice, which we’re not talking about, but not homosexual marriage.
.
Secondly, if we want to argue that homosexuality in animals makes homosexuality or gay marriage okay, we’re going to have to seriously reconsider our stance on cannibalism. Great white sharks, army ants, and more animals practice cannibalism, but I’m sure no one would argue that this fact is a good reason to allow cannibalism among humans.
.
To those who argue for the right to homosexual marriage because it is hardwired into their biology: what do you do with the “hard-wired” desire of every heterosexual man, at the deepest part of his biology, is to have sex with every attractive woman he sees? If it is true that evolution is responsible for human life, and it is also true that there is no higher purpose for a living creature than to reproduce, do we have any reason to decry the actions of a man who rapes women and kills men in order to spread his genes as far and wide as possible? If this is reprehensible to us, on what grounds is it reprehensible? Doesn’t it make evolutionary sense, doesn’t it fit perfectly well into the concept of “survival of the fittest”? If you reject this biological imperative, doesn’t it destroy your defense of homosexuality as an impassible consequence of a person’s biology? I’m not saying it makes homosexuality indefensible, but it would seem that the biological argument could no longer be used.
.
I would really like someone to show me evidence that marriage began as a completely secular institution or as a religious institution (with the exception of the book of Genesis). I’m not calling for the opposing side to put their money where their mouth is; I would merely like to see some reason to believe we could know the origin of marriage one way or the other, and I’m sure those who come down hard on one side have evidence that can back their claims up.
.
As a Christian, I entreat my fellow Christians to follow Paul’s advice in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13: “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside…” We can argue the Bible with others who have sworn loyalty to the Christian God, but we must use other arguments to those who have not. It is only by proving the correctness of our position beyond merely “The Bible says so” that we convince others of the rightness of our beliefs.
.
I won’t apologize in advance, but I will say this: It is not my intention that anyone should be hurt or offended by anything I have said here.
“There’s no reason to support gay marriage because homosexuality exists in animals.”
.
I agree with this statement. But this defense is generally made against claims that homosexuality is unnatural (and, therefore, that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry). I don’t think anyone claims it to be a reason for same-sex marriages (if they do, their claims are unfounded).
.
“If it is true that evolution is responsible for human life, and it is also true that there is no higher purpose for a living creature than to reproduce, do we have any reason to decry the actions of a man who rapes women and kills men in order to spread his genes as far and wide as possible?”
.
Yes. The reason is that these actions harm others. Consensual homosexuality harms no one.
.
“We can argue the Bible with others who have sworn loyalty to the Christian God, but we must use other arguments to those who have not. It is only by proving the correctness of our position beyond merely “The Bible says so” that we convince others of the rightness of our beliefs.”
.
Thank you!
.
“I won’t apologize in advance, but I will say this: It is not my intention that anyone should be hurt or offended by anything I have said here.”
.
No worries there. Yours is one of the most reasonable and considerate anti-gay-marriage arguments I’ve come across.
If this is reprehensible to us, on what grounds is it reprehensible?
.
Because, in the case of rape, the woman did not consent. I thought that was obvious, but maybe it’s just me.
.
But then, this is why the ‘slippery slope’ is so silly: the dead cannot give consent, children legally cannot give consent, animals cannot give consent.
It’s true that the “Hey, animals do it!” argument has been misused but the point is that homosexuality seems to have origins in something other than just the desire of some people to tick off other people. Seriously, I have to marvel at how some people seem to think that gays just one decided “Hey! Beard stubble and back hair! Whoo hoo!”. It’s like thinking someone who uses their left hand is just trying to be different for attention.
.
Rape, murder, war, all these potentials may be hardwired into our brain. In that sense they may be similar to homosexuality…and heterosexuality, for that matter. I have no problem with the latter two, as compared to the first 3–is that so odd?
.
It seems to me that if something is innate in a person we should set a fairly high bar in suppressing it. At the very least it should be demonstrably harmful to themselves or others. Now, some can point out that gays have higher incidents of depression, suicide, etc but you would have to show that A- this is a consequence of their homosexuality and not the fact that hey are being mistreated by people who hate them for it and B- that the “cure” would not be worse than the “disease”.
.
In the end, much more good will come from allowing gays to marry than any bad that could possibly occur. Now, it could be argued that this particular ruling is faulty on the merits and could lead to a backlash but all the evidence suggests that gar marriage is gaining acceptance and will become the law of the land, if not now, then soon.
Others have already answered quite well your other assertions, but I will simply point out that if Christians can overlook which aspects of the Bible they want to ignore, while cherry picking the bits that support their latest crusade–as they routinely do–then I think it not unreasonable to point out homosexuality in the animal kingdom would indicate it’s not the unnatural phenomenon some would claim without having to embrace cannibalism, urinating on one’s property to mark it, devouring our young, or a woman killing her mate after copulating.
.
Not that some people haven’t been tempted…
.
PAD
We can cherry pick what we want out of the Bible? Why didn’t someone tell me this sooner? I’d take time to express indignation, but I’m too excited at the thought of finally wearing clothes made of goat hair and wool to care.
Peter, I wish you’d explained yourself a little better, because without any examples, I’m going to have to assume you’re part of the “Christians hate gays and love shellfish” crowd.
.
I’m so completely not interested in walking you or anyone through this over the Internet, but to be short, the New Testament overwrites much of the laws and decrees of the Old Testament. I refer you to the writings of Paul, who says that the Law only existed to prove to us that we could not keep it, thus setting the stage for Jesus’ propitiation. Look at Romans 6:7- “But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.” It’d be great if you also went to the Gospels and realized that if the Old Law were still binding, Jesus would have dozens of sins recorded in the Bible. Did you know the fourth commandment of the Ten Commandments is no longer a requirement? It’s the only one of the commandments that is not reaffirmed in the New Testament. As for homosexuality, it’s very explicitly stated as a sin in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10-“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (I like how Today’s New International Version says “practicing homosexuals,” thus elucidating that it’s not a sin to have same-sex attraction, only a sin to have extramarital sex.)
.
If you want a long, hard look at this, I suggest William Webb’s Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals or anything that talks about the “redemptive movement hermeneutic.”
So, if there were laws good enough to disregard from the Old Testament, logic would dictate that there are ‘laws’ good enough to disregard from the New Testament.
.
I’d recommend starting with the whole “homosexuality is a sin” thing.
.
And from your other post:
I am pro-civil unions.
.
Yes, you are because you want religion to control the term marriage. To which you are more than willing to take the term away from the many people who did not have a religious ceremony for their marriage.
.
But then, the religious seem to have no problem taking things away these days, such as fundamental rights they enjoy, like marriage…
So, if there were laws good enough to disregard from the Old Testament, logic would dictate that there are ‘laws’ good enough to disregard from the New Testament.
.
I’d recommend starting with the whole “homosexuality is a sin” thing.
.
The last time laws were made irrelevant was when God came in the flesh to Earth to teach a new way of life. If Jesus comes back again and tells me to stop treating homosexuality like a sin, I’d be all for it. Furthermore, Jesus’ birth was predicted as early as Genesis 3, and the Jews who believed in the coming Messiah knew that their way of life would drastically change upon his appearance. Ceremonial laws regarding blended fabrics was discarded and civil law that involved hurting yourself, others, or humanity at large were kept and restated. you’ll also notice if you look at the Bible that while Christianity at its roots expressed more freedom and power towards slaves and women, it was harsher on homosexuality than its surrounding cultures, thus showing us homosexual sex still was not and would never be okay. Again, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals. Great book.
.
Yes, you are because you want religion to control the term marriage. To which you are more than willing to take the term away from the many people who did not have a religious ceremony for their marriage.
.
But then, the religious seem to have no problem taking things away these days, such as fundamental rights they enjoy, like marriage…
.
I said no such thing. I said I didn’t want the GOVERNMENT to have the word “marriage”. I’m okay with atheists, Buddhists, homosexuals, or anyone else having their own private ceremonies to declare themselves “married.” What I’m against is that status having to be recognized by those whose ideas of marriage are incompatible. I believe some ministers and priests were actually sued in California because they wouldn’t perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, and that’s what I’m against.
.
It is not my goal to force anyone to live by my personal religion or code of morality. I merely ask that I might be allowed to live that code without external force from anyone else. I’ve never talked to anyone, gay or straight, who didn’t find civil unions to be a good way to do that.
God created me. He also created my boyfriend. We love each other. The impossible choice we are being asked to make is either be as God created us to be, or be as people who interpret the bible believe we should be. I make no apologies for being gay. Pretending/Denying I wasn’t only led to pain and suffering. I don’t know about ur Christian God. But MY Christian God loves me. and my Boyfriend. If you want to say we can’t be married. Fine. But do not tell me that we don’t have the same right to be happy as you. That we can’t reap the same benefits of marriage as you. Call it civil union. call it partnership, heck call it Chuck for all I care.
I don’t mean this as a dig, but the path to h e double hockey sticks is paved with good intentions. By comparing the love I have to cannibalism, rape, and murder you have hurt me sir. And i will be praying for you.
I am pro-civil unions. I’m actually pro-civil unions for all couples. Let the government get out of the business of marriage if so many find it a sticky subject (and yes, I know a lot of you think that marriage STARTED as a government contract, and I earnestly want to read anything supporting your argument. No, really.) I’m actually not sure why I should be anti-gay-marriage, because it’s not like gay couples are going to strong-arm God into being okay with it.
.
Make no mistake, I believe homosexual sex is sinful. It’s just like my predilection for lust and mášŧûrbáŧìøņ. Both are sins. I’m not coming at homosexuality as a person who never sins, but as someone who never wants to sin, and one who wants the same spectacular fate for everyone else on Earth.
.
If I did compare homosexuality to rape, cannibalism, and murder, I only did it the same way I just did it with lust: all of them are sins. I can’t take responsibility if you were hurt by that comparison. It’s just a comparison. I’m a white male. So were Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy. Doesn’t make me a serial killer. I don’t want to hurt you, but if your hurt comes from me correcting a misconception of the Bible and God’s Will, I’ll treat it like the pain a surgeon causes while he’s removing a tumor.
.
I hope you were serious about the prayers; I need them. I need to grow in love and understanding and boldness for the cause of Christ. I’ll pray that we both come to a better understanding of God’s Will for us and the rest of the world. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “I love you. I would rather die than hate you.”
Why shouldn’t gays marry? They deserve to be as miserable as everyone else! 🙂 I agree with the whole point of “It just doesn’t matter,” because it doesn’t affect my marriage in any way.
@starwolf “As for the BC case, the police investigation dates back to 1990. Yet it wasn’t taken to court until after the courts legalized the other unions. Sounds like too much of a coincidence for there not to be SOME element of “well, they got lucky, maybe we will, too”.”
It wasn’t taken to court in 1990 because the charge wouldn’t stick, how is that a coincidence?
Remember the Bountiful Polygamists didn’t take anyone to court. The BC government decided to see if they could charge them with something and came to the conclusion that any charges would fail under religious freedon.
Something the leader knew and had claimed back in 1990.
There’s NO correlation. The timing has do to with the US crackdown on Warren Jeffs.
They are looking to find evidence of child abuse; forcing them into marriage before the age of consent etc.
As for the foursome. the fact they are keeping quiet proves what we’re saying.
This is a bit of a generalisation but I hope it’s fair. The push to legalise Gay marriage is about making sure the spouse has the rights that a spouse of an opposite gender union.
Can you just have civil unions with all the same rights? I suppose, but honestly it still comes off as not quite equal.
As for your bit about smoking. Sure 40 years ago they would have laughed at that, but 40 years ago they would have laughed at you for saying smoking is really, really bad for you and even if you don’t smoke you can still get sick if you hang around other smokers.
Ok, a simple answer that should appeal to any reasonable human being. It would apply to hetero marriage, homo marriage, so-called interracial marriage(we’re all human, yes?), marriage between family members (which is not incest, incest is purely sexual), and polygamy.
.
Informed Consent. Once we’ve eliminated all the socio-hysterical, hypothetical, and religious bûllšhìŧ that’s what it really comes down to. Anything else is tyranny through enforcement of will.
.
I’ve noticed that I used the prefix “homo” above. I mean it not in the derogatory sense, rather as a direct opposite to “hetero.” It’s sad that I feel the need to clarify that in advance. Screw it. If my meaning is taken out of context then someone is far too politically correct for their own good.
Marriage was created when kings were going around having sex with whomever they pleased. When all these children came of age, they would war with each other over who has the right to be named the next King.
One day a wise King went to his advisors and said “my children will not be children for much longer. Soon there will be bloodshed and the kingdom will be confused. What shall I do?”
A priest stood and argued that if there was a union under our gods that would bless one woman to the king, then only the children born to this woman would have a right to the throne”
The king smiled and proposed a union to one of the women of his children. She accepted and time was given for word to reach every corner of his land so that people could come and watch this union and see the proof of lineage with their own eyes. The King and Queens oldest child was named a prince and declared heir to the throne.
I think gays would start making a lot more headway with people if they start concentrating on what their argument actually is.
To me, the most valid argument is: “In this country, people get to believe what they want. But any individual using those beliefs to infringe upon another person’s freedom for no other reason than offended propriety is the exact opposite of what this country stands for.” There are still right-wing crazies who won’t acknowledge this, as there’s too much political capital at stake for riling the nut-job voter base, but there are even conservatives who defend gay rights (Meghan McCain for one) for specifically this reason.
But it’s far too polarizing to add to that argument, “Oh, and being gay is completely normal and natural, too, and this discussion will never end until everyone accepts that.” Whether or not you agree with that statement is not my issue — it’s that, strategically speaking, the two arguments are distinct, and that attempting to inject that ultimatum into the national discourse is going to perpetuate the whole culture war that it already is. Then BOTH sides are on a self-righteous, fundamentally unwinnable crusade, and nullifies the whole point of individual rights: the rights of one person to have a set of beliefs, and the rights of another to be unconvinced, intellectually or emotionally.
I took some personal inventory, both of my thoughts and my gut reactions to various scenarios, and here’s what I came up with. This is just me, I’m not trying to claim any special insight — I’m just expunging myself for the sake of unedited candor:
It’s stupid to say that gay people can’t be earnestly in love.
It’s stupid to say that gay people have to justify their relationships to others.
It’s stupid to say that gays can’t be good parents.
If God has a problem with gays, He can work it out without us — using your religion to beat up on a fellow human being is kissing cousins to flying a hijacked plane into a skyscraper.
My marriage is my own to nuture or destroy. Ellen and Portia have nothing to do with it.
Something about being out brings out the best in gays I know — dealing with society’s attitudes have taught them how to define their own egos and self-worth. Strangely, I see so many gays who are more … I don’t know … TOGETHER, psychologically speaking.
—
But, no, the gay thing ITSELF? I just don’t get it. I’ve tried (and I mean it), but I just can’t. I tried visualizing different scenarios to test my barometer, and it starts flashing red at two guys kissing (and I was fine stopping there). And that’s fine — that’s my thing, and it’s up to me to deal, you know?
But I don’t like being told that there’s something wrong with ME if I can’t quell my gut response that there’s something askew with it.
I don’t like the double-standard argument that homosexuality is just genetics at work, but my response to it is my raging homophobia.
I don’t like gay men who use their homosexuality as an excuse to regress. It’s not the gay that bugs me, it’s that a forty-year old man shouldn’t act like a spoiled fourteen-year old girl. I love Neil Patrick Harris — get an action franchise under his belt and he’s basically Hugh Jackman — but Perez Hilton bugs the **** out of me.
I don’t like the pretensiousness of people using their self-defined “tight-track” relationship with God to validate gay rights any more than I do those who would deny them. Saying God is cool with gays “because I say so” is even more pretensious than saying God has a problem with gays “because the Bible says so,” which at least has some external merit. Throwing God into it is another way of saying, “Since I’m so enlightened, and since God is perfect, he must agree with me.” Again, God doesn’t need a spokesman. Who’s got him figured out? I haven’t a clue — but neither do you.
(And this isn’t even to say that the argument has to be couched in religous terms at all: People on both sides of the argument don’t believe in God, or don’t believe that the Bible is inspired. Just don’t jump between an argument that uses religion and then one that denies it.)
—
So, what does this all mean, I guess? Maybe just that everyone is going to be who they’re going to be, good and bad. Maybe I’m wrong on some things, and maybe I’m just different than you on some things. Maybe there’s an actual authority out there who has the answers if we’re only willing to listen, or maybe this is just something we have to figure out ourselves.
And maybe if we stop trying trying to make the argument yet another facet of the need for everyone to validate our own wisdom, we can get out of everyone’s ášš and start looking at each other in the face, and maybe some real discourse can begin where we don’t edify ourselves and villify the other guy.
Inconclusive enough for everybody?
It’s part of Dumb Argument Part The Deux: anti-gay bigots are secretly gay themselves!
.
Maybe that argument stems from the number of high profile anti-gay crusaders who then get caught in gay bars, or soliciting gáÿ šëx, or traveling with a gay cabana boy. In the meanwhile, high profile defenders of marriage routinely have four or five divorces under their belt. There just seems to be an impressive track record insofar as the high profile defenders of morality are concerned.
.
PAD
The burning question is, are the high profile defenders of morality already guilty of the things they protest against, or does protesting cause them to subsequently fall prey to the “vices” they denounce? If the latter, I hereby declare myself a high profile defender against the immorality of sex with multiple (legal-age) cheerleaders simultaneously, and with the evils of winning huge sums on the lottery.
Genetic fallacy, Peter.
Have to admire your willingness to take hits from both sides, dude.
.
The reflexive cry of “homophobia!” to anyone who is in any way shape or form not pro-gay bugs me, and this is from someone who is about as pro-gay as one can be without having a genuine dog in the fight, if you know what I mean.
.
It doesn’t even make sense–a phobia is not something a person can control so in a way you are letting them off the hook. I’m surprised nobody who has ever been fired from a job for being an anti-gay bigot hasn’t tried to sue to get their job back under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
.
It’s part of Dumb Argument Part The Deux: anti-gay bigots are secretly gay themselves! Now if one makes that claim just to torque off Fred Phelps, all well and good, but a lot of people seem to believe it. And again, this is letting them off the hook AND saddling gays, who have enough trouble, with a bunch of kooks.
.
In my experience the real hard core nasty bigots are NOT tortured souls who are dealing with issues beyond their ability to control. They are douchebags who have earned no mitigating excuses.
.
Can I throw out another point, maybe valid maybe not. There is a perfectly valid reason why thinking about two men having sex could revolt you and it ties in to another point, which is that a lot of the same guys who feel that way do not get grossed out by the thought of two women. It’s that for a heterosexual guy the only way they would be likely to engage in a male homosexual act would be if they were raped. Seeing two guys being sexual with each other starts the subconscious going and takes you to a very dark place. And it isn’t like it’s some sci fi premise, one of the shames of this country is how we accept the fact that going to prison means you will possibly, maybe even likely, be raped. It’s the punchline of a thousand jokes. Even some self identified liberals who are aghast at the prospect of the death penalty have been known to chuckle at the prospect of someone they despise being raped in prison. But that’s a topic for another time.
.
No excuse for bad behavior but it’s one reason why I give people some slack for not being totally comfortable with gays. Most of them are just a new friend or two away from gradual acceptance, if not enthusiastic approval.
.
And EVERYONE hate Perez Hilton. Oscar Wilde would have socked him in the snout.
.
“And EVERYONE hate Perez Hilton. Oscar Wilde would have socked him in the snout.”
.
You know, I’ve always wanted to see an official poll asking who is the bigger waste of skin, breath and time. Would it be Paris or Perez?
.
Might be the only poll Paris ever comes out looking good in.
Well, Paris Hilton DID do those hilarious rebuttals to John McCain, including–as I recall–putting forward an economic plan that actually made more sense than anything either McCain OR Obama was saying.
.
Perez bugs the crap out of me, but annoyingly, he got me global publicity with his coverage of Shatterstar.
.
PAD
.
Huh… Didn’t know that bit about Shatterstar. Of course, I do tend to usually block out everything that comes after the name Perez Hilton.
As much as she’s done some reprehensible things, I’m seconding the John McCain rebuttals – they’re hilarious. She’s also fairly decent in Repo! The Genetic Opera.
.
Yeah, Repo! The Genetic Opera rules. Still think Paris is only marginally less a waste of skin than Perez though.
Well said, Bill.
.
There is the often unspoken truth that many straight males are repelled by gay males in a gut level, and I suspect that all the religious and moral issues are more secondary than we want to admit it.
.
“What you do just freak me out, stop doing it!” is not a very mature argument, so people come up with all the other justifications.
.
I also agree with you that “homophobia” is losing its original meaning, and becoming just a fancy way of saying someone is opposed to gays.
.
I’ve met plenty of people that had feelings of fear and discomfort in relation to gays (“homophobes”) that were nonetheless supporters of gay rights. On the other hand, you can have anti-gay crusaders who don’t feel personally threatened by gays. They are separate things.
.
I would only add that the myth that all anti-gay crusaders are secretly gay has a tiny sliver of truth. Of course the majority of them isn’t gay. But acting like a bigot is such a wonderful way to disguise yourself that it’s no surprise that many insecure homos do it.
.
I have an uncle that is extremely gay but loves to make anti-gay comments when he is with his mom and siblings.
I don’t deny that there is an element of truth behind it but I think it’s a bad argument nonetheless for several reasons, not the least of which is that it perpetuates the slur against gays. It’s using the charge of being gay as a weapon. “Not for gay marriage? Fággøŧ!”
.
And if the anti-gay people were smart they’d turn it right around on them. “I am saddened that my opponent must resort to attacks to make their point. I note that the means by which they do so is to use homosexuality as an example of deviant behavior. How telling.” but of course they don’t do that, they just squeal “Hey! I’m not gay! MOM!!!” or something.
.
I mean, if fred Phelps turned out to be gay–which would not surprise me at all, because the guy is so far beyond the pale that there must be something going on we can only wonder about–it would be amusing and generate a good month or two of schadenfreude but then gays would have to live with having him go down in the history books as a gay American, right there with Roy Cohen and Tia Tequila. Wouldn’t exactly be a walking advertisement for the “We’re just like everyone else” crowd. Better he remain as he is–a warning to all anti-gay thinkers of where such thinking can lead.
The ruling is quite clearly and well written. It is 138 pages and you can find it here https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf
In broad terms it found that gay marriage does not redefine marriage and that marriage itself was redefined; gender roles which once were clearly defined became less so, and women were allowed their own freedoms, interracial unions were also mentioned thus it was declared that gender makes no difference in marriage.
Scientific facts prove that same sex parents can be at least as good a opposite sexed ones, and that fertility was never a condition of a martial union.
The state is not harmed financially or socially by same sex marriage it is helped, but lack of it would hurt gays.
Other people’s marriages are not harmed or changed by same sex unions.
Domestic partnership was found to be used only as a division marking gay couples as less valid or less worthy than straights’
The Prop 8 campaign was found to have used gay stereotypes and phantom accusations about gays being dangerous to children which was found factually to be untrue and language of prejudice.
There is more and stated much better than I could; check it out. It made me proud to read that there are intelligent people who can call prejudice prejudice and not feel like we have to say both sides are equally valid. The judge found the defense’s witnesses relied only on their own moral views and had no real evidence to back up their claims and that these “experts” contradicted their own claims.
My fundamental point does not deal with whether a gay couple can be good parents. I am simply arguing that the very purpose of marriage is an institution designed, in part, to protect the rights of the kids conceived in such a union.
Have you read the decision? This very point is taken care of, in two ways.
And, again, you’re somewhat inaccurate in your history in that it was passing down the property to the designated heirs, whether they were from that particular union or not (a rather important point since, without it, it kinda negates your whole argument).
Roger,
.
I have read parts of the decision. To which part do you refer? The parts I read simply dismissed the importance of what I am arguing.
.
Regarding property, it is true that it was not usually equal. But that does not negate my point. Who raised the child? Who cared for it?
.
The fact that one may have inherited all of the property, while important, is not the core issue. The legitimate child was still just that — legitimate.
.
Iowa Jim
It is being dismissed because the function and purposes have changed. Read the decision.
Moreover, (and I’m pointing this out AGAIN) since your are proceeding from inaccurate premises (they are taken almost entirely from western European structures), you are, by force, going to end up in bad areas.
You’re ignoring that adoption occurred and was an accepted case in other societies and that offspring from previous marriages often had rules to integrate them into the family structure and that offspring from relations could be integrated into a family structure. These were all known and not particularly controversial rules and practices. Given these known exceptions HAVE PARALLELS IN SAME SEX MARRIAGES, your argument fails. Utterly.
Stay the F**K out of my bedroom. If two consenting adults want to worship Satan that has NOTHING to do with me. ‘What about the kids?’ What ABOUT the kids? Here’s my advise-be a dámņ parent.
Being Gay is not a choice it’s who they are. I’ve been known to watch a pørņ film from time to time. I’m a law abiding citizen, how the f**K is my choice of entertainment your business?
‘What about god’? What ABOUT God? It’s called FREE WILL people and God’s OK with that. Or maybe some people don’t believe in YOUR God. What are you going to do? Strapped on a bomb and blow yourself up to make your point?
Go right ahead, just be alone when your stupid ášš does it.
Michael, sweety, i love the enthusiasm. and I love hoe passionate you are about this… but take a breath. Ha. Getting worked up over people like that isn’t worth our time or energy.
Michael doesn’t tend to post in half measures.
.
PAD
I totally agree with Michael’s reasoning and sentiments, if not his tone.
In instances like this, I don’t have a problem with his tone at all. Calm, diplomacy doesn’t seem to work with these morons, so I can’t get upset when a little passion mixes with a still completely rational argument.
And before Peter calls my credentials as an English teacher into question (again) because of the comma after calm, I concede it should be there. Sadly, there’s no edit function.
And before Peter calls my credentials as an English teacher into question (again) because of the comma after calm, I concede it should be there.
.
You mean you concede that it should NOT be there.
.
PAD
Stay the F**K out of my bedroom. If two consenting adults want to worship Satan that has NOTHING to do with me. ‘What about the kids?’ What ABOUT the kids? Here’s my advise-be a dámņ parent.
Being Gay is not a choice it’s who they are. I’ve been known to watch a pørņ film from time to time. I’m a law abiding citizen, how the f**K is my choice of entertainment your business?
‘What about god’? What ABOUT God? It’s called FREE WILL people and God’s OK with that. Or maybe some people don’t believe in YOUR God. What are you going to do? Strapped on a bomb and blow yourself up to make your point?
Go right ahead, just be alone when your stupid ášš does it.
Exactly, Michael.
.
What you’ve written, and the idea of “Mind Your Own Business” that I infer from it, was a major factor when I came to the Informed Consent conclusion. I figure that as long as people know what they are getting into and agree to get into it it’s none of my business.
.
George Carlin put it best and I am about to misquote him: “If consenting adults want to slap each other with hot pokers while blowing the neighbors cat who am I to complain? Plus think of all the fun the cat is having!”
And, when all is said and done, I can but leave you with two quotes to ponder:
.
From the US Constitution, Article IV, Section 1: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”
.
And from the US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Paragraph 1: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Colbert at his best:
.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/343140/august-05-2010/how-to-ruin-same-sex-marriages
As this has been hashed over for close to 200 posts, here’s my simple solution.
Let there be gay marriage and protection from discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation.
Once those two things happen, let ’em slug it out with the rest of the world.
Okay, here’s the best argument I’ve seen for allowing gays to marry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJb7_fbCm4c
(NSFW, but even the prudest of prudes will get a chuckle out of it.)
Seriously though, as a happily married straight black male with one biological daughter and one adopted daughter, I’ve been really perplexed by these “it’s not a marriage if you’re not a man and a woman who can have sex and therefore produce children even if you can’t have children or are too old to have children or don’t want children or don’t like children or are afraid of children because you’ve seen “Children of The Corn” too many times” arguments that have been posted. The more the proponents of such twisted themselves into pretzels here trying to explain or clarify those positions, the much less clear they’ve become, and apparently they themselves are perplexed that most people here don’t understand their “logic”. I remember years ago a similar topic here on this blog where Iowa Jim made the same “marriage is for children” argument, and I responded that in my lifetime I’d never seen it defined specifically as such, honestly. The biological/God connection is based purely on whether one’s religion or personal bias directs such, and not on any universally recognized definition of the institution of marriage. Bottom line is that marriage in any state, country, planet, etc. is what the law defines it to be in order to have legal status, and in some societies that would be decided by the “will of the people”, but just like slavery, women’s suffrage, Jim Crow and other human rights issues in this country were not ultimately resolved by any popular vote, the stance that gay marriage should be left to how the majority currently feels about it doesn’t hold water. Given that every hard fought human rights issue in the U.S. has in fact been eventually won, I don’t really understand why conservatives can’t see that that opposing gay marriage and upholding DADT won’t soon become similar historical footnotes in their defeat; and it’s not a “liberals hate conservative” position that pushes for these issues, it’s the slow but eventual education of the human race that allows what was once an acceptable restriction to fall to the wayside as enlightenment reveals its true injustice. I’ve known and have interacted with many gay people in my lifetime, and if only those opponents of gay maariage revealed on this blog would have had only a tenth of the experiences I’ve had with them, knowing that they’re not confused, deviants, or lisping characatures from sitcoms, but people just wanting to live their lives, I’m betting those opponents would readily see the fallacy of their current beliefs.
I don’t understand why certain people are upset that their children are being “brainwashed” into accepting homosexuals as … well, let’s face it, as people. But, they don’t see any problem at all at “brainwashing” children into discriminating against homosexuals.
.
It is my thought that if we are going to brainwash children, which is really just another way of saying “raise children” because brainwashing is a way of molding thinking patterns and establishing cultural mores, and raising children is a way of molding thinking patterns and establishing cultural mores, then why not do so in a way that makes them more tollerant as they grow older.
.
Is there something special about intollerance that makes it preferable in children? Maybe a statement about the human spirit that is recognized when people overcome their original “brainwashing” that is necessary for our society?
.
Theno
Now if only any of my close gay friends were actually in a committed relationship and wanted to get married, I could have fun partying at another wedding.
Has anyone seen the Prop Infinity episode of Futurama? It is a spoof on the whole Prop 8 fiasco (not the current overturning, as it came out before that, but the election in the first place.)
.
All through the episode, I kept thinking Prop Crazy Eight. I wonder who may have put the idea in my head that the infinity symbol was a “crazy eight?” 🙂
.
.
I read somewhere an argument against gay marriage that stated that now, with Prop 8 overturned, homosexual people who don’t want to get married, but have a partner who does, can’t use that as an excuse.
.
Theno
On the front of MSNBC.com right is a man is holding two signs. One says “A moral wrong cannot be a civil right”, while the other says “Stop judicial tyranny!”
.
Another in the background says “California where votes don’t count”.
.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
I am just too happy to feel angry about the anti-gay folks.
Slowly but surely, Western society is becoming accepting of homosexuality. There is no way to turn the clock back. They’re losing the fight. Let them cry.
As for “brainwashing,” it makes me dámņ proud that the younger generations are already a lot more tolerant than mine ever was.
When I went to college in the mid-1990s, gays weren’t exactly assaulted, but it was still a tense subject, it was the sort of thing that you’d best tell only to your real friends. Today, I already feel the change, I see lots of teens and twenty-somethings completely out of the closet when they’re among other people their age.
About time, I say.
“A moral wrong cannot be a civil right”
This is judgmental, but so what? t is simply a man espousing his beliefs, which under our Constitution thankfully allows him to do. To whatever degree those who oppose him feel he is wrong, does not diminish that right and automatically make him wrong.
.
“Stop judicial tyranny!” When the will of the people is overturned, no matter how enlightened are morally superior those who oppose them believe them to be, that should always be cause for concern in a demoocratic republic.
.
Another in the background says “California where votes don’t count”
.
Well that sign pretty much rings true, doesn’t it? Obviously if things stand, all those people’s votes DIDN’T count. Again, you can argue that they’re all bigots and that’s a good thing, but again, in a democratic republic, it should always be cause for concern when the will of the people is overturned – no matter how wrongheaded you feel their votes are or for which cause.
.
That said, gay marriage looks inevitable.When Bill O’Reilly says “We’re going to see gay marriage within the next decade, no matter what the Supreme Court eventually does and Glenn Beck – who hardly ever weighs in on social/cultural issues says, “Don’t we have more important things to worry about? What? Are we supposed to be afraid that gay people are coming after us?” and says his libertarian roots make him only want to see these people be happy, the status quo does not look like it is going to last very long regarding this issue.
“This is judgmental, but so what? t is simply a man espousing his beliefs, which under our Constitution thankfully allows him to do. To whatever degree those who oppose him feel he is wrong, does not diminish that right and automatically make him wrong.”
.
Except he is wrong. Morality is subjective, so, yes, something that someone sees as a “moral wrong” can most definitely be a civil right.
“Another in the background says “California where votes don’t count””
.
Of course, the same guy would have the same sign if the voters passed a bill banning guns in the state, and the courts overturned it as being unconstitutional.
.
Right?
.
Theno
I know this thread has been drawing down to a close for days now, but I couldn’t help but also repost this link here, as well. I wish I’d had the chance to read it when it was originally posted nearly two years ago.
.
Traditional Marriage Perverts the Tradition of Marriage
by Jeff Goode (Californian)
.
http://archielevine.blogspot.com/2008/11/traditional-marriage-perverts-tradition.html