There has been vigorous email debate today among the GayPatriot crowd, and a good suggestion was made to make it a posting:  What would be the elements of a “conservative” homosexual agenda? The debate began after a few of us read this news item from Matt Barber at Townhall.com.
As with every major political movement, the homosexual lobby is pushing a specific agenda. It is often called the “gay agenda.†At its core is a concerted effort to remove from society all traditional notions of sexual morality and replace them with the post-modern concept of sexual relativism. That is to say, when it comes to sex, there is never right or wrong.  All sexual appetites are “equal.†If it feels good, do it. Ultimately, the homosexual lobby’s primary objective is to radically redefine our foundational institutions of legitimate marriage and the nuclear family by unraveling God’s natural design for human sexuality. In so doing, they hope to elevate their own spiritual and biological counterfeit and establish a sexually androgynous society wherein natural distinctions between male and female are dissolved. This creates cultural and moral anarchy.    Â
Our email exchanges all agreed that Mr. Barber was a bit over the top…. but there was some validity to his overall premise. There is a radical LIBERAL gay agenda. So logically, blog ally VtheK brought forth the question open for debate now:
It begs the question of what a conservative homosexual agenda would look like. I guess where that would get bogged down is on the issues of marriage and adoption.  It’s difficult to reconcile an agenda that would, presumably, seek those things while retaining traditional values.  I guess the approach would have to be two-fold.  1.) Declaring that marriage as an institution should be defined by voters, not by judges and 2.) That gay relationships should model monogamy and commitment as ideals, and that the expectation of monogamy and commitment should be normalized within the gay community.    Â
Have at it.  My only remaining question is… why is it left to us to develop the Gay Conservative Agenda, when last I checked there were people giving money to Log Cabin (Republicans) to do that kind of work???  Oh… yeah…. I forgot:  they are too busy being giddy about government payouts.
From LCR email entitled, “Free Money!”
President Bush this week signed a huge economic stimulus package. Most Log Cabin members will receive a check from Uncle Sam in the amount of $600 dollars, and we hope you’ll consider stimulating Log Cabin by donating all or part of your tax rebate check.
Hmmm.. how “very Human Rights Campaign” !
LCR=gay conservatives?  Sure, and I’m a purple cow.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)Â Â *moooooooooooo*Â Â
UPDATE (from Dan):  Sorry I haven’t had much time to weigh in on this topic, but it is something that I have considered for some time.  I think the basic gay conservative agenda is a word we hear less and less frequently from the lips of the heads of gay organizations — and read less and less often in their statements and press releases — and that word is “freedom.”  Leave each individual free to live his life as he chooses.  Of course, that is just the beginning, but it is also the unifying theme. And then, there’s the fundamental issue of what we do with that freedom.  But, that, Senator Obama notwithstanding, is not a question for the political sphere.Â
I’ll paraphrase my response to V’s comment earlier. Basic agreement with his ideas; slightly different spin.
To me, a conservative (i.e., good) gay agenda is to achieve formal equality for responsible gays and lesbians. And, to recognize that it takes time and people have a right to object, disagree or be skeptical. So, building on V’s agenda, I would say:
1) Legislated progress (not judicial progress) based on persuasion, respect for our opponents, and the patience that implies.
2) Cleaning up "our" own act. No tolerance for people who want kids at the Folsom Street fair. No tolerance for people who want to repeal or violate age-of-consent laws. No tolerance for gay men expecting to turn public spaces into gay sex spaces. No tolerance for "bug chasing". And so on.
3) Civil unions / gay marriage, in the States that want to experiment with them.
4) DADT repeal, or at least put the "DP" (Don’t Pursue) in DADTDP.
5) And of course… no sodomy laws! make sure they stay away forever!
As for Matt Barber’s rant: He’s a great example of someone who has some good points, then blows it by stating them badly.
With his emphasis on "homosexuals" as "deviants", I would have to say, terms like "homophobic" (irrationally afraid of homosexuals) and "anti-gay" do indeed apply to Barber. It’s a pity, because his basic point – that the most extreme Left gays are morally nihilistic, or downright nasty – has a lot of truth to it.
(And, Barber tries to slip in points that are just wrong. Gays are only 1% of the population? Just wrong. Gays are modern, or haven’t always existed in all human societies? Just wrong. Etc.)
I don’t understand why the LCR is so committed to being labled "conservatives"…other than in comparison to the rest of the G/L community. It would be more productive if they would embrace the old Republican Party-label of "Progressive" as promoted by Theodore Roosevelt; traditional "Republican virtues", yet willling to fight for "reform" where change is needed……both within the Party and in Society. You don’t have to be 100% "conservative" to be a Republican if you support limited government, lower taxes, a better business environment for growth and trade, and a strong military and foreign policy. And changing public ( and Republican) views on DADT and civil unions/gay marriage falls under the heading "reform".
What I would call a Progressive Republican agenda for the G/L community that can’t stomach the liberal cant of the Dhimmicrats and their fellow travelers would include repealing DADT, and ENDA at the Federal-level-only. I’m not convinced that while it would be nice to have ENDA for all that it’s not Federal over-reach. And the same with "gay" marriage, let the states decide how they want to label the legal reality and leave the churchs open to hold their own positions. But, I can see the logic of a Federal civil unions standard that would apply nationally to all the benefits AND responsibilities currently available to married persons based on the Federal guarentees of equal-access, equal rights and interstate reciporcity. But let the States decide if that carries to state-regulated and state- and locally-provided benefits….and most importantly to what "name" they applyu to it.
First, off I’m straight and quite the realist. Politics pretty much works by giving something in order to get something in return. Right now, and for the past 40 or so years, heterosexual men have been under severe assault by increasingly anti-male family and employment law. Currently, gay men are seen as the political allies of the single group most reviled by straight men: feminists.
Any "conservative gay movement" needs to appeal to the self-interests of straight, middle-class men who aspire to or have a wife and children. That group is the vital to any modern post-industrial society and without it society simply falls apart. This is not me whining at all but simply offering a sober assessment of the political realities of the day.
I came here from GlennSacks.com and if you go over there you can get a taste of what confronts straight men today.
How many here basically would agree with Newt Gingrich and his call for a Center-Right coalition? If by political-activism within the GOP the agenda shifted-off the gay-baiting, how many would agree with Gingrich’s point in the need to both constructively critize when needed…and the need for reform?
http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3176/Default.aspx
If McCain really wants to win in 2008, he should draft Gingrich as his Veep…or at-least his "Rove"/Grand Vizer.
Hey, the comment’s live preview window is not working…..
If you want to really differentiate the gay right from the gay left, your agenda should include the line "We respect the right of others to disagree with and dissent from our points of view, we welcome honest debate, and we oppose efforts to censor speech or violate freedom of conscience."
#6 – Ted, I’m confused by some of the premises in your question. That the Republicans have long since departed from the small-government principles and ideas that once attracted a huge center-right coalition to Reagan should seem to me obvious. So, I like Gingrich’s call.
But where’s the "gay-baiting" you refer to in today’s GOP? (Aside from the occasional Mark Barber on Townhall or WorldNetDaily. Note: As an Independent, I don’t get/read fundraising letters, so I may not be seeing it if that’s where it happens. Note 2: the 2004 FMA / MPA strategy was clearly a bust.)
#8
I got some fund raising letters, especially back in 2004. Of the tons that I got, I don’t recall any of them addressing gay marriage. They were all about getting Bush elected and defeating democrats.
In so far as I’ve seen, the whole "gay marriage/election issue" meme was imagined by the liberals. Maybe it was more pronounced on the state levels where the people were deciding on such ballot measures, but I didn’t see it on the national level.
But then I also think that the whole "religious right in control of the Republicans" is a fantasy right up there with the hysterics over Karl Rove. Folks give both WAYYYY too much credit.
<i> 1.) Declaring that marriage as an institution should be defined by voters, not by judges </i>
I agree with the spirit of this statement, at least the sense that "the people" should determine the makeup of marriages, but I think we fall victim to a false dichotomy: "overreaching judges" versus "the wisdom of voters."Â
Why not propose, instead, that marriage should be left up to the <i>citizens</i>? Why not a system where each adult couple can determine the makeup of their own marriage? He’s 97 and she’s 22? Well, I’d vote against, it…but why should <i>I</i> get a vote? It’s their marriage. He’s a man and his fiance is also a man? Well, my grandpa would vote against it…but why should <i>he</i> get a vote? It’s not his marriage.
Conservatives should take back the term "equality" from liberals who use the phrase "marriage equality."Â Propose true marriage equality–not between gay and straight, which requires identity politics, but equality between all citizens.Â
Marriage should be a free market: if states see fit to create an institution to declare couples legally bound (and all states do), then they should provide the same institution for all adult citizens within the state who choose to partake in it. And the decision about who each citizen should marry should be left entirely to the person who has the most stake in it: that citizen.Â
Did I enter my html incorrectly in that last post, or is it just not working?Â
I think the legal issues are separate from the "community’s" moral choices.
Legally gay marriage or its equivalent must be granted but must also be well defined- no leeway for polygamy and any other "slippery slope" combination.
Legally rights must be preserved but no "special" rights or set-asides demanded or accepted.
As for the community it is too broad a coalition. Are gays really fellow travelers with Cross dressers, Bi-sexuals and transgenders (much less exhibitionist fetishists)? I think not. I would also add that keeping kids form Fulsom Street fair is missing the point. That "fair", or at least enough of it, is un-paralleled in the non-gay community . Conservative Gays should stand against it and the type of sctivity mirrored in parades across the country.
I’m not calling for a Mattachine approach to life- just one that doesn’t play up every gay sterotype.
This is a most important point.As a straight looking in on the concerns of conservative gays, I am constantly frustrated with the confusion of identities. So far is gay marriage is concerned, it only makes sense (to me) to model the "ideal" traditional marriage model. Breaking down the man-woman wall is revolutionary enough without dragging in all the performers in the side show.
Legally rights must be preserved but no "special" rights or set-asides demanded or accepted.
The term "special rights" has been bandied about so much that I have difficulty knowing exactly what it means. I usually find it to mean "no rights but what we feel like giving you" which I reject.
As for the community it is too broad a coalition. Are gays really fellow travelers with Cross dressers, Bi-sexuals and transgenders (much less exhibitionist fetishists)?
I agree with you about fetishes and transgenderism. Apparently there are more gays & lesbians who likewise feel the same way, judging by the flap over ENDA last year.  The issues of fetishists and transgenders just aren’t the same as those for gays & lesbians IMO. It’s up to those folks to make the case for their issues, of which I for one am not entirely convinced myself. There is an enormous difference between having a sexual orientation towards persons of the same gender and actually wanting to BE the opposite gender from what one was born with. Apples and oranges IMO. As for bisexuals, I disagree. This falls under a differing sexual orientation from the majority, which is what gays & lesbians are talking about.
I would also add that keeping kids form Fulsom Street fair is missing the point. That "fair", or at least enough of it, is un-paralleled in the non-gay community . Conservative Gays should stand against it and the type of sctivity mirrored in parades across the country.
I agree wholeheartedly. I fail to see how something like FSF or even bathhouses can be legal, nor do I agree that they are constitutionally protected.
If you want to really differentiate the gay right from the gay left, your agenda should include the line "We respect the right of others to disagree with and dissent from our points of view, we welcome honest debate, and we oppose efforts to censor speech or violate freedom of conscience."
Abosolutely! This is why I defend the rights of even folks I positively despise, like Fred Phelps. If we can take away their rights because we detest them, what’s to stop a majority from doing likewise against another group like us?
I actually don’t have a problem with the Folsom Street Fair (i.e. sex in public, but surrounded by people who want to see it and who you’d have to practically fight to get through and see it yourself), despite the illegality. My comment was in reference to a controversy where some FSFers actually dress up their kids in fetish gear and bring them to the fair. And the fair organizers let them. That’s crossing a line. Involving kids in a grownup fetish-world: Plain evil… no other word for it.
"That group is the vital to any modern post-industrial society and without it society simply falls apart."
The InstaWife (drhelen.blogspot.com) posted a couple of articles about men and marriage, and it has spread to a conversation with her and Kim du Toit (follow the links). You might find it interesting.
And I was going to ask what "bug chasing" was, but I suspect I’m better off not knowing.
Wow, this is the Gay Patriot post I’ve been waiting for. I’ve occasionally read Barber’s columns – he makes culture war talking points, but does not think through them.
I’m sorry but The FSF and the rediculous parades are a black-eye on the gay community. Public image is very important but not just because it informs non-gays. Honorable, clean and patriotic Gays in the community inform young Gays on how they should carry them-selves.
When I refered to "Special rights" I meant rights conferred to one group which come at the expense of another. The worst example being cities looking to hire x amount of Gay or Lesbian businesses. Why? Its unfair! Its also traumatically unfair to gays who are not open for whatever reason. This kind of "special right" fosters envy and animosity.  America doesn’t need that do we?
" Breaking down the man-woman wall is revolutionary enough"
Woah, Woah, WOAH! Men and women, the two sexes, are different, staggeringly different. See, THIS is the wariness in the straight community over the whole topic of gay marriage. Feminists would love to use the gay marriage to ghettoize as many straight males as possible; the term hetero-normative is far more likely to be found on a feminist website than on a website dedicated to gay rights/issues. Breaking down the sex distinction is a feminist initiative and if gays want to reassure the average, non-ideological hetero American then they need to vociferously disavow that feminist agenda that is attempting to piggy-back in on gay rights.
If gay marriage is about breaking down the distinction between male and female then I’m opposed. But if it’s simply about recognizing a committed relationship between two individuals who are biologically the same sex then I’m cool.
#19:Â Agreed. I’m adamantly opposed to quotas.
Asher, I admit to being confused here. From 1620 to 2008 marriages in the colonies and the United States have been between a man and a woman only. I merely meant that changing that formula to state sanction marriages between two men or two women would be a change of revolutionary proportion.Sorry, but the feminist agenda references have gone over my head.Â
<blockquote>If McCain really wants to win in 2008, he should draft Gingrich as his Veep</blockquote> Not to get off-topic, but I think putting Gingrich on the ticket would ensure McCain’s defeat. More than anything else, with the people’s choice of McCain and apparently Obama, I think this election is shaping up to be the "anti-divisiveness" election. I think it’s the elephant-in-the-living-room issue this season. People are sick to death of the poisonous political atmosphere that has overflowed Washington and seeped into their everyday lives, and want an end to it. So much so that Democrats are giving the boot to the Clintons in favor of an unqualified walking platitude and Republicans are turning to a guy who’s stuck his finger in their eye more than once because he is seen as someone who gets along with the other side.
I really do think thats the political atmosphere at present, and because Newt (no matter how much you may admire him) is seen as very politically divisive, having him on the ticket would destroy any chances Republicans have.
ok, it appears code has changed in comments, lets try this:
#10 <blockquote cite="Why not propose, instead, that marriage should be left up to the <i>citizens</i>? Why not a system where each adult couple can determine the makeup of their own marriage? He’s 97 and she’s 22? Well, I’d vote against, it…but why should <i>I</i> get a vote? It’s their marriage. He’s a man and his fiance is also a man? Well, my grandpa would vote against it…but why should he get a vote? It’s not his marriage."></blockquote>
Because one thing that differentiates conservatives from liberals is that we are not moral relativists. And I abhor the argument that the way to go about gaining support for gay marriage is by suggesting that any union is okay as long as enough people vote for it. That is precisely the fear that most people have about gay relationships, the "what next?" question. "If we allow gays to marry, what’s next? A man marrying his dog? A man marrying his little sister?"
And I’m sorry, but with your line of reasoning, they would have a very valid point. And I’m sorry, but gay relationships are morally superior to those. No, the argument for gay marriage is that gay relationships are, or can be, completely healthy and of benefit to society. Not that anything goes as long as enough people vote for it.
ok, would someone please explain how to create a blockquote, since I cant seem to do it any more. :^D
<blockquote>The term "special rights" has been bandied about so much that I have difficulty knowing exactly what it means. I usually find it to mean "no rights but what we feel like giving you" which I reject</blockquote>
It means individual rights as opposed to group rights. hate crimes legislation and equal opportunity laws fall under the category of special rights, where laws against murder and assault and color blind admission policy treat everyone the same.
And yes, some people do use the phrase incorrectly.
Actually, no. My line of reasoning is that the state, if it provides a service or institution for its citizens, should provide the same service or institution for all of its citizens. The state should treat every adult citizen equally and avoid special privileges. So, most slippery slope arguments (several of which you mentioned) fail. Polygamists can’t claim that they’re being discriminated against, because no person in the state has the right to marry two people. No person has the right to marry a dog, and dogs aren’t adult citizens, so the dog can’t claim it’s being denied a privilege that others are being provided. Children are not adult citizens, and no one in the state has the right to marry a child, so there’s still no discrimination there. (…and while I’m on the subject, when are social conservatives going to stop bringing out the "what about sex with dogs" examples? If someone were arguing with you about mixed-race marriage, and they brought up sex with dogs–for any reason–you would think less of that person. I’m sure that many of the people who bring up the example are not bigots, but as behavior-that-is-not-bigotry-per-se goes, it’s the equivalent of sitting on a porch with KKK members, slapping their backs and sharing beers with them while you are carefully pointing out to an observer that you don’t share their views.)
American Elephant, it seems that to create a blockquote, you need to press the HTML button and enter your <blockquote> text </blockquote> into the popup window. Then, it looks like you have to type the rest of the message in the popup window, and then insert whatever carriage returns you want after you "update" your changes, when you’re in the "your comment" section.
Did "Live preview" stop working?
Polygamists can’t claim that they’re being discriminated against, because no person in the state has the right to marry two people.
Â
Well, by that logic, gays can’t say they’re being discriminated against, because no person in the state has the right to marry someone of the same gender.
Furthermore, the argument often postulated by gays is that you should be able to marry the person you love. Well, in that case, it’s discriminating to not allow polygamists to marry as many people as they love, or for pedophiles to marry children.
You were better off not knowing. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing_and_giftgiving">bug chasing.</a>
I think the best way to get gay marriage legalized in this country is to get the people behind it. If some states by legislation, or preferably popular vote could legalize it people would see it’s not the end of the world just because gays can marry.
But that’s exactly what we have now. Every citizen already has the right to enter into the institution of marriage. The catch is that you have to enter into it with a member of the opposite sex, because the entire reason government gets involved in the first place is to encourage men and women to get hitched so that when children are born it will be into wedlock. You seem to approach marriage, as far as the govt is involved, as grab-bag of entitlement goodies being unfairly denied you,rather than as an institution that exists for a purpose. Marriage isn’t a "service" as you say, it’s an incentive.
In other words, you propose radically changing the institution from one that is defined by society to encourage a set of behaviors society deems beneficial,to one that is defined by the individual to benefit the individual. If the purpose of marriage is to serve the whims of the individual, then there can’t be any logical prohibition to any union of consenting adults whatsoever. (Nor can there really be any logical discouragement of divorce) What if two sisters want to get married to save on taxes? And what logical prohibition is there to the marriage of three or more people? There is none — if society no longer gets to determine the purpose of marriage, but it’s instead left up to the individual, then two becomes nothing more than an arbitrary number. Perhaps you don’t intend to propose that marriage should be morally relative, but that’s still the the logical conclusion of your arguments.
Actually, all of us are being discriminated against because we’re denied marriage to a class of people based on our own gender; it’s just that gays are the ones who feel it. Imagine a man: intelligent, great sense of humor, good job, the epitome of decency, and good-looking to boot. Under current state law (except in Massachusetts), my sister can legally marry this man, but I cannot. The only reason for this discrimination is my gender. So even if this man and I both want to get married, the state prevents it.
I belong to a class of people who cannot marry men. I’m an adult, and I’m a citizen, and I’m just asking for the same rights that any other given adult citizen has. I’m not being denied equal rights in this case because I’m a homosexual; I’m being denied equal rights because I am a man.  The state can’t determine whether I’m gay in any objective sense, the legal situation is based wholly on the fact that I’m a male.
By your logic, anti-miscegenation laws were not discrimination, because no person in the state had the right to marry someone of a different race.
Perhaps that’s why I didn’t postulate that argument. Laws must deal with facts, and "love" is not something that can be factually established. It’s nice to think, and hope, that married couples will love each other, but love is certainly not something the state should be policing.
Phil, you can not use "love" as a predicate term in a syllogism. "Love" is a word with so many meanings and actions that it can not be used as a premise pivot in logic. To wit: Beer is loved; God is loved; therefore beer is God. Admittedly, this is a silly-gism, but it makes the point. In the first premise "loved" is a reference to the effects of beer and in the second premise "loved" is a reference to awe and reverence.The laws must be logical. They have to avoid willowy terms so that enforcement is not left to constant interpretation. Therefore, we avoid basing laws on what is "good" or "bad" or "loved" or "hated" or lots of other multi-meaning words of emotion, comparison and sensation.No gay man is prohibited from marrying a woman. Your idea that there is state discrimination in this formula may be a worthy argument. But the door you open does not logically preclude marriage between brothers or fathers and sons who may truly love one another and wish to be married. After all, incest is not a factor here. And I would argue that polygamists are the subject of state discrimination as well. If two men are allowed to marry, why not three men?Â
"Marriage" is how 2 adults, unrelated by blood and otherwise unattached to anybody, declare themselves to be a family unit and attached to each other, in our civilization. A family, in our civilization, is a mini social-welfare unti where kids and reproduction might or MIGHT NOT enter in.
There is no logical or rational reason to keep gays from marrying. It actually isn’t (or wouldn’t be) a revolutionary change to the structure of marriage at all. You’re still looking at 2 adults, unrelated by blood and otherwise unattached, declaring themselves / each other to be their primary mutual caregivers and primary attachment. No different than when my elderly dad married his elderly second wife (a widow).
Multi-person marriages would be a revolutionary change. Male-dominated polygamy would be a revolutionary change – *even though it is in the Bible*, while strict one-on-one marriage actually is not. (Jesus only said "Don’t divorce"… not "Men must limit themselves to a single wife"). Marrying people closely related by blood, would be a revolutionary change. "Marrying" an animal, would be a revolutionary change. Why? All those things involve profound changes to the legal structures & common law we’ve built up around marriage. But just letting gay couples marry? Not so much.
Society has always had rules for which couples / pairs / matchings can marry, and those rules have always changed with time. There was a time when a couple of markedly different social classes could not marry – that is, could not declare themselves a family. There was a time when a couple of different races could not marry. There was a time when adults could marry children (and in many parts of the world, they still can – Blech!) People who wanted to adjust the rules were told, "You can’t – what you’re proposing is too revolutionary". But it wasn’t. From the social, legal, practical, psychological and moral standpoints, 2 adults who are unrelated by blood and unattached to anyone else forming a new family unit between themselves, is and always will be the essence of marriage. Gay marriage doesn’t disturb nor threaten that.
Having said all that: Social and legal recognition of the union is also of the essence. And that does take the recognition and support of other people. So changes to the rules – like gay marriage – Do have to be voted in democratically, for the long-run health of the society.
P.S. So, not to be a jackhammer here, but: the "slippery slope" argument is just rubbish, and to anyone who says "What about 3 people marrying? What about incestuous marriages?" etc. etc. etc. – My answer is always and universally the same:
Keep referring to that. Now a correction: I mis-spoke when I just said, "Social and legal recognition of the union is also of the essence." It’s just very helpful and important – Not of the essence. The 2 unattached (unrelated, adult) people marry each other and form a new family – whether or not society recognizes it. But society would be wise to recognize it. Having people form such units is to the benefit of society. Having gays form such units, will be to the benefit of society. That (not "benefits" or "equality" or so-called "justice") is why society should do gay marriage.
ILC, I notice that both Canada and England are "dealing with" the Sharia concept of a man and four wives in terms of property rights. Polygamy may slip in under the tent on the nose of the camel through the multiculturalism paradigm and confusion over the role of the state and the "laws" of religion. If we are not careful, here, Islam may control the agenda on common law and the fate of not only the gay agenda, but gay life itself.
True, sadly. Our civilization may be in a slow-motion process of committing suicide. I don’t see gay marriage as suicidal (for reasons given about). I do see caving into Islam / Sharia, multi-culturalism, moral relativism / nihilism, Marxism and some other things as suicidal.
(aargh… "for reasons given **above**")
Heliotrope wrote: "Phil, you can not use "love" as a predicate term in a syllogism."
You are correct. But, um, heliotrope, why are you directing this at me? What I wrote was:
1. "Love" is not something that can be factually established.
and
2. "Love" is certainly not something the state should be policing.
We seem to be saying the same thing.
Heliotrope writes: "And I would argue that polygamists are the subject of state discrimination as well. If two men are allowed to marry, why not three men? "
No, that’s not a logical conclusion. A person isn’t a "polygamist," that is a term we could apply to someone based on what they want to do. And I’m not saying that gay marriage should be legal because I want to do it, I’m saying it should be legal because I’m a man, and I deserve the same rights and privileges that a woman has. And I’m willing to argue that a woman should have the same rights and privileges that a man has because, well, I’m fair like that. :)Â
Oddly, your formulation–that a polygamist is being discriminated against because he or she desires to marry multiple people, is based on a "willowy term."Â Whatever the crux of the argument ("I am a polygamist because I want to marry multiple people, I desire to marry multiple people, I love multiple people," etc.), you’re still saying that a state must base its laws on an undefinable term.
To say that "if the state allows each adult citizen one spouse at a time, then the state is discriminating against people who want two spouses, or three" is exactly the same faulty logic as saying, "if the state allows each person’s vehicle to emit X cubic liters of pollutants for each mile driven, it is discriminating against people who want to emit X+1, or X+2…."Â
I’m aware of the faults with my argument ("All adult citizens should be treated the same by the state") and they are twofold:
I. Under this argument, marriage could be completely eliminated just as easily as it could be extended to include all people fairly.
II. It doesn’t provide a convenient reason that brothers can’t marry their sisters.
I don’t view the first fault as a real problem. Perhaps I’m such a libertarian that I think the state should get out of the marriage business and allow it to be a true social contract, but I don’t think we’re going to see that happen.
As for the second fault, well, are we really saying that the only reason that the state ought not allow brother-sister (or other close family) marriages is because of "tradition" and "societal disapproval?" Really? There’s no logical reason besides that? I can think of a few, but I’m curious if we all really operate on the assumption that it’s just the ick fact, and nothing factual or objective, that justifies incest laws.
(I should probably add that I didn’t mean to use "social contract" in a political science/historical sense; I should have come up with a better word for "a contract that is social.")
ILoveCapitalism writes: "I do see caving into Islam / Sharia, multi-culturalism, moral relativism / nihilism, Marxism and some other things as suicidal."
I’m not sure what "caving into nihilism" would look like, from a legislative perspective, but I do think secularism is an important antidote to the encroach of Sharia and certain aspects of Islamic culture. Worship whoever you want, but every citizen in the land will be subject to, and must follow, the same laws.Â
I couldn’t disagree more with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who said, " ‘there’s one law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said, […]’—I think that’s a bit of a danger."Â
I rather think it’s the best way for a society to function.Â
(I’m editing his comments; if you want to read his whole statement, google "archbishop" and "one law" or something.)
Why is this a matter of national public debate at all?
I am responsible for my own choices. If they turn out to be good choices I benefit; if they are bad I suffer. I don’t need other people to tell me who I may or may not love.
As for basic our relationship models on those of heterosexuals, well I hope we are selective in those models. I don’t think anyone can argue that straights are an overwhelming success at marriage. Why would I want to imitate a model with a 50% success rate?
I do believe in monogamy. I am often ridiculed as naive for believing so but I can take a little ribbing. I also don’t condemn friends who are in open and caring relationships so long as both of them are happy with that arrangement. What I think doesn’t work is deception and betrayal and of course the denial that so many have that their partner is having other relationships.
I don’t know how it is the state to regulate such things but considering how hard so many on the right fought to keep Texas’ sodomy laws (for the gays only, I should add, the heterosexual restrictions were lifted in the early 90s) including at the time soon-to-be Gov Bush. The argument was that the laws were needed to keep order which I can only assume was code for "we have to keep the faggots in their place." The Supreme Court was right. The state has no place in people’s bedrooms so long as everyone is of legal age and everyone is consenting.
Marriage is another issue. Gay marriage is coming. I just have to be patient. I’m sorry for those who will suffer from not having the legal protection of a marriage in a difficult situation. I wish I could speed up the process but change alwasy upsets some people and they push back. In the end we will win this one. It’s just a matter of time.
But please tell me why some people are so obsessed with other people’s sex lives? Jealous? Secretly turned on by the very idea? Control freaks? What is it?
Mutual respect between the evangelicals and gay Republicans.Â
I was once a Republican guy, in the Houston Young Republicans, and
a volunteer on the floor of the Astrodome in 1992 cheering Ronald Reagan.In 1992 I block walked for a pro-choice state rep, a pro-life Republican slammed a door in my face.
I offered respect for the pro-lifers, I offered respect for their religious beliefs and traditions,
but they were not even willing to consider the same in return.If the evangelicals could just agree to disagree, and we offer respect ( which most gay Republicans already do ).
That would be a nice goal.
Actually, all of us are being discriminated against because we’re denied marriage to a class of people based on our own gender; it’s just that gays are the ones who feel it.
And we’re all being discriminated against because we’re denied marriage to a class of people based on blood relationship, number of existing marriages, age, and species.
Equality means equality. If you are going to make the argument that the state cannot deny marriage to anyone without it being a violation of equality, you must equally enforce that for everything.
I can think of a few, but I’m curious if we all really operate on the assumption that it’s just the ick fact, and nothing factual or objective, that justifies incest laws.
Well, we used to have the fact that it vastly increased the chances of genetic defects in offspring immensely — but that went away when gays and lesbians argued that reproduction should have nothing to do with marriage.
I don’t need other people to tell me who I may or may not love.
They’re not. What they’re telling you are the relationships that will have legal sanction. Frankly, I don’t care how many wives you want to have, but don’t expect me to give you the legal benefits for having more than one.
But please tell me why some people are so obsessed with other people’s sex lives? Jealous? Secretly turned on by the very idea? Control freaks? What is it?
Probably because those peoples’ sex lives are used as justification for things like this:
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall. Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men. The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store. Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off……. Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event. "Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with," he said.
Phil, First of all, you should understand I’m not opposed to gay marriage, I’m in favor of it. That said, all your arguments have been made in court after court in state after state, and even in the most liberal states like mine (Washington) they failed. I’m just trying to help you understand why your reasoning is wrong. I would think you would agree that attempting to legalize gay marriage by rehashing arguments that have already failed is futile. 1. Marriage is not a right. Freedom of association is a right. If someone were preventing you from spending your life with whomever you choose you would have an argument, but no one is, so you have no argument on those grounds. You are free to spend your life with whomever you want, free to hold a ceremony in front of whomever you want(there are even churches that will perform it for you), free to draw up legal arrangements with each other…free to do everything but receive the subsidies taxpayers give to encourage a behavior you are not exhibiting. Equality under the law is a right. And here’s where most homosexuals have completely deluded themselves, but they need to get it through their thick skulls that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equivalent. Heterosexual couplings can and often do produce children. Gay relationships, no matter how hard you may try never, never, ever, ever, ever, ever can. period. If and when gays can ever come to grips with that irrefutable, non-negotiable fact of nature, they will be so much happier. It doesn’t mean gay relationships aren’t of value, but it does mean that gays are not being treated unequally by the law. 2. There is a reason the government is involved in the marriage business. Americans don’t subsidize marriage because love makes them feel warm, fuzzy and loose with their wallets. In fact,no one in government asks you if you’re in love when you get married. The government couldn’t give a rats ass about love. But they do ask if you’re related, and they do ask for a blood test to make sure your spouse is aware of your sexual health, and at some point or other they make some sort of cursory check that the couple-to-be has dissimilar naughty bits. You’ll notice without much effort that the one thing all these requirements have in common is their relation to healthy procreation. The government isn’t involved in the institution of marriage for the sake of adults — adults, being adults, can take care of themselves. Nor are they incentivizing marriage to encourage love — whether married couples love each other or not is really irrelevant. But what government, that is, society, does have an interest in is encouraging an arrangement where children are born into legally binding relationships. The fact that not all married couples have children doesn’t change the fact that children born into wedlock is of great benefit to society. And so that is the reason, as has been affirmed by courts across the country, even is the bluest of the blue states like WA, OR, CA and HA, that goverment is involved in marriage at all.
All of which is perfectly fair, and constitutional and, frankly, right. So the issue then is convincing America that encouraging gay marriage is also in societies best interest. Which, it seems to me, is the only rational approach to the argument in the first place, and the only conservative one.
oh hells bells, I have to code paragraphs and everything? ok, i finally get it, sorry for that monstrosity, but i thought i was breaking it up.
Because marriage is a fundamental building block of society and a tiny group of gay activists tried to take it to court and change it without asking anyone.
actually straights are overwhelmingly successful at marriage. The idea that there is a 50% divorce rate is a lie.
The only people obsessed with gays sex lives are gays. massive parades featuring fat lesbians in pasties and leather men whipping eachother, BDSM fairs, everything in the entire "gay community" revolves around sex. No, the vast majority of americans couldnt care less what you do in your bedroom. They just wish you’d quit trying to force them to every time they turn around.
With the exception of "blood relationship," which I identified in post 41, none of that follows logically from what I said.
It’s not discrimination if I can’t have a right that I want. It’s discrimination if I can’t have a right that other people have. (And if you want to pick a nit about the term "right," then feel free to substitute "privilege.")
It’s not discrimination because I can’t marry a dog; no one has the right to marry a dog. It’s not discrimination if I can’t marry two people at the same time, because no one in the state has that right.
Are you just baiting me, NorthDallasThirty, or do you really not see the distinction?
It’s discrimination if you say that, during wartime, black people are rationed to one tube of toothpaste per month and white people can have two. But if everyone gets one tube of toothpaste, it’s not discrimination. You don’t deserve more toothpaste just because you believe in a magical being who wants you to have two. That belief is your own responsibility, not society’s.
If there was a wartime system where the rationing worked like this: "Black people are allotted one tube of white toothpaste each month, and white people are allotted one tube of black toothpaste each month."
…would you consider that to be discriminatory, if each type of toothpaste was very very different? Or would you say, as you do with marriage, that everyone is treated equally because everyone is allowed to purchase a tube of toothpaste that’s the opposite of their skin color?
I’d call it discrimination.
Well, for starters, the fact that an argument has failed in court does not indicate the the argument is, per se, faulty. But more importantly, you’re not being accurate. The court arguments that I’ve read focus on identity politics, and the notion that "gay citizens" are being discriminated against because their relationships aren’t being recognized.
I’m not sure who you’re responding to here, American Elephant. It’s clearly not related to anything that I’ve said. Â It might be more clear if you quote the text of the person you feel you’re refuting.
I don’t disagree with you, by the way, that it’s important to convince America that gay marriage is in society’s best interest. I happen to think that one way to do this is to get gay marriage legal in as many places as possible, so that America can see that same-sex marriage does not bring about Armageddon.
No one thinks that kids at the Fulsom Street Fair was a good idea.  Can we let that one go? Everyone agrees on this.
I guess the issue is how to convince conservatives that gay marriage is a good idea and I’ll leave that to you guys because I haven’t a clue how to win over the Huckabee crowd on this issue. And it’s not really just about marriage in this case, it’s that they actually believe that gays chose to be with the same sex as some sort of rebellion against God. Yes, they really believe that. So good luck is all I can say. When we are talking about a party that is still mad that the Supreme Court ruled against sodomy laws, marriage is probably a stretch.
This may be an important point. I don’t argue for gay marriage based on "equality". I argue for it, based on the *benefit to society* of having people (gay or straight) settle down and pair off. The slippery-slope counter-argument doesn’t apply. Yes, you can still ban incest if the major point is *benefit to society*. Yes, you will still ban polygamy if the major point is *pairing off*. Etc. But, Left gays are arguing for it based on "equality". Yeah, then you get the slippery slope, as NDT points out. It’s a fundamentally bad argument. It misses the whole point and purpose of marriage – which is, to induce and incent people to pair off for the benefit of society. To misunderstand something profoundly and argue for it very badly, is to undermine it. A State-sanctioned marriage license (with certain attendant advantages) is not a right. It is not something all relationships or people merit "equally". A Conservative Gay agenda would acknowledge that, and argue for gay marriage (or civil unions) more patiently and intelligently.
Then why haven’t the fair organizers banned kids from the fair, Houndentenor? Perhaps they did and I missed it. But if not: Then no, NOT everyone agrees on it yet.
ILoveCapitalism writes: "I argue for it, based on the *benefit to society* of having people (gay or straight) settle down and pair off."
I agree with you, that it’s a benefit to society. But I think the argument is a much harder sell to religious conservatives (like the Huckabee crowd), because it requires me to change their religion before they can accept my point of view. That’s a tall order, and it seems to make more sense to argue for equality, a civil rights argument which has been tried before, and let people realize the benefits to society when they see/feel them once it’s legal.Â
Just want to go on record saying I don’t think kids at the Fulsom street fair is a good idea. I would imagine there are at least two major constituencies within the gay community who think this, and perhaps we/they could align to encourage organizers to do something about it:
1. Conservative-to-moderate gays (heck, even a lot of liberal gays) who think that just because a child’s parents are gay, that doesn’t mean the child should be exposed to extreme sexuality at an early age.
2. The practioners of extreme sexuality who find the fair less fun due to the presence of children. (There have to be at least a few submissive bottoms who would say, "Um, public masturbation is not enjoyable when there are five-year-olds walking around.")Â
First, as I said, it’s about persuasion and accepting others’ right to disagree and think differently. If we (gays), of all people, can’t do that….??!! Second,
and which, in the case of gay marriage, only (1) makes us look like immature whiners who don’t understand marriage, and (2) opens up the whole slippery-slope can’o’worms to "equality" for polygamists, pedophiles, the incestuous, etc. You really think that’s an *easier* sell, with the "Huckabee crowd"?
ILoveCapitalism, I’m not sure we’re understanding each other. I agree that what’s crucial is persuading others to accept our rights to disagree and think differently.Â
But you’re suggesting we must convince people who believe that gay marriage consigns people to hell that it’s still beneficial to society. I submit that that’s a lost cause, without converting them to different religious beliefs. Far better is an "agree to disagree" philosophy when it comes to the law.Â
I’ll ignore your ad hominem about immature whiners, but I do think that a reasonable equal-treatment-under-the-argument is an easier sell, because most of the "slippery-slope" examples that you brought up are fallacious. They do not logically follow from the argument that "all adult citizens deserve equal treatment under the law," and no matter how many times you repeat that without support, it won’t become true.
It’s not "gays" who are being discriminated against, it’s men and women. The vast majority of us fit into one of those two categories. The idea that "a woman deserves the same rights as a man" seems an easier sell than "a lesbian deserves the same rights as a heterosexual woman."Â
Natch, that last statement is a matter of opinion.Â
But do you agree that persuading people to change their religious beliefs is, generally, more difficult than persuading people to change a political position?
We give tax breaks to companies that cut back on pollution. Your arguments are akin to a company arguing that it should get the same tax breaks even though it has increased its output of pollution. Marrige is not a right, it is not a privledge, it is a set of incentives to encourage people to engage in a behavior society deems beneficial
Yes, I am. You are completely ignoring the reason government is involved in the marriage institution in the first place. You seem to think Americans cough up their hard-earned tax dollars to subsidize marriage for no other reason than to "discriminate" against you. But the fact is that there is a reason Americans subsidize marriage, and you cannot by the very nature of your relationship perform the function to society that society is trying to encourage in the first place. Which, as I said, has been affirmed in court after court across the nation:
When you can perform that function to society, you can claim discrimination. Until then, you can believe as passionately and stubbornly as you want that you are being unfairly discriminated against, but you will remain 100%, irrefutably, undeniably, dead wrong.
Back on topic, I think part of a conservative gay agenda has to start with embracing liberty, self-determination and the unfettered rights of association and equal justice under law –and the latter by informed public consent at the ballot box.
And just like conservative media advocates begin by reminding all that the MSM is captive of the Left, a gay conservative agenda should begin by reminding all how the GayLeft is still on the liberal/Democrat plantation and that the gay community isn’t a monolith.
I wonder how the conservative gay agenda would be different from a libertarian gay agenda? Aside from legalizing weed, releasing the aliens at Area 51 or returning to the gold standard or re-issuing silver notes, would there be a difference?
#52. No the problem with the Huckabee crowd isn’t about getting them to change their religion or even their point of view. I don’t care that they believe homosexuality is a sin. I do care that they want to government to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. No one should be forced to have sex with anyone they don’t want to. That’s called rape and it’s illegal.
Religious conservatives claim (you can watch them on television and listen to them on radio if you don’t believe me) that other people living their lives freely is an "attack on our freedom."Â
#54 – Phil – Yeah, let’s start by agreeing-to-disagree, here. If it’s impossible (as you claim) to convince some of the people who need convincing that society will benefit from gays settling down and pairing off, then convincing them gays deserve to be *equal* must surely be that much more impossible. But, you don’t see it that way. OK.
#55 – AE, you’re right. Also, I liked your #46. Except for a couple bits: gay couples can and do conceive, using many of the techniques infertile straight couples use to conceive (sperm donors and surrogates). Meanwhile, elderly couples can’t conceive and, procreatively speaking, are thus gay couples. If the marriage office is checking that a couple could procreate safely, its measures aren’t exactly rational.
#56 – "Back on topic… the liberal/Democrat plantation… [or libertarians] legalizing weed, releasing the aliens at Area 51 or returning to the gold standard…" – Good ol’ MM. Always treading water in the corner 😉
I should have been specific about what I agreed with in #55. I meant this part: "Marriage is not a right, it is not a privilege, it is a set of incentives to encourage people to engage in a behavior society deems beneficial" – where I understand the behavior as:
(1) Settling down / pairing off into these relatively mutual and stable little care-giving units.
(2) Where applicable, raising children in such units.
(3) Where such units may break up: Giving children effective legal claims on their parents’ money and attention.
With gay marriage it would be mainly (1). But that would still be a benefit to society. Same as old people who marry. That’s the case we need to make. Also, sorry AE, but (2) and (3) apply somewhat, even with gay couples.
First Phil:
It’s not discrimination because I can’t marry a dog; no one has the right to marry a dog. It’s not discrimination if I can’t marry two people at the same time, because no one in the state has that right.
And, since no one in the state has the right to marry someone of the same gender, it’s not discrimination.
Case closed.
Next Houndentenor:
Â
No one thinks that kids at the Fulsom Street Fair was a good idea. Can we let that one go? Everyone agrees on this.
The parents who did it think it’s a good idea.
Let’s see gays and lesbians publicly excoriate them first, Houndentenor. I’ve seen you and your fellow gay liberals throw vicious screaming and namecalling fits at religious people; I want to see one thrown at these parents who used those religious people as an excuse for their behavior.
And finally to ILC:
Â
(1) Settling down / pairing off into these relatively mutual and stable little care-giving units.
Which can happen regardless of whether or not they are married.
(2) Where applicable, raising children in such units.
 (3) Where such units may break up: Giving children effective legal claims on their parents’ money and attention.
That already exists, thanks to laws that a) recognize biological relationships as claimaint upon the parent in question and b) adoption laws that establish that effective legal claim, since gay and lesbian couples are incapable of producing children that are biologically related to both of them.
ILC/Calarato/whatever offers (off topic again) "Good ol’ MM. Always treading water in the corner "
It beats splashing in the shallow end of the pool with you. Try to stay on-topic, for once, ok?
#60
I have yet to read anyone defending parents for taking their kids to the Fulson St Fair. If I missed it I apologize. So far that makes what 2 parents vs. 300,000,000 Americans who think that was dumb.Â
Considering Huckabee’s ideas about gays and that he is doing quite well in the primaries and even winning some states, it’s hard to equate the two.
Look, I know all Republicans don’t hate gay people. I do know that Republican candidates have a history of pandering to people who do hate gay people to get votes. Until that changes it’s going to be hard for you to convince most gays that Republicans don’t all hate them. So the rhetoric has been toned down. That’s a start, but perhaps if it was made clear that the GOP was for freedom for all Americans and not just some select groups that might make it the party that so many of you claim it is. I’m an economic moderate and a social libertarian. If the Republican candidates would stop pandering to the religious right they could make an appeal to me. But given the history it would have to be a strong one and I don’t see any candidates even trying.
MM: surrealer and surrealer! You really ought to try saying something related to the thread topic. It’s "The Conservative Homosexual Agenda". Right now, a few of us are debating the possible role of gay marriage in such an agenda.
NDT: Of course people (gay or straight) who really want to settle will. The point of a State marriage license is to make it extra easy and desirable for masses of them to. It affects the mass / macro-level level of behavior. If there were no State marriage license (with the attendant cultural expectations and privileges), many people would still form couples – but, on the margin, not as many. Society benefits from having an easy, obvious, government-sponsored way for straight couples to declare themselves legally a couple / family. Society will benefit when we have it for gays too. But again: As you may know, I think it should be voted democratically and don’t mind incremental steps.
As for this: "since gay and lesbian couples are incapable of producing children that are biologically related to both of them" – That’s a better way of saying that point. But it still means there is no real difference between a gay couple and an infertile straight couple. Also, please note, labs have already taken genetic material from 2 same-sex animals and grown an animal that is biologically related to both; we’re only a few years from doing that with humans, making the "Gays can’t produce children related to both parents" collapse entirely.
Now youre really getting close to it. You are correct, there is no real difference between a gay couple and an infertile straight couple…except this, and it is admittedly a fine distinction, but nevertheless a constitutionl one…
If the purpose of marriage is to encourage men and women to couple so that when children are born they are born into a legally binding relationship between their biological parents — then making that institution open to all opposite sex couples doesn’t change the nature of the institution. No matter how many couples are infertile, the fact still remains that it is only male-female couples that produce children. So the institution is not redefined by admitting any male-female couple.
However, admitting same sex couples, because of their biological nature, flips that definition on its head — changing marriage from an institution that exists to encourage ideal child-rearing situations and benefit children, to one that is instead focused on benefitting the adults. That is, because gay couples are incapable of having children by their very nature, it would necessarily mean that allowing gays to marry would necessarily mean that the definition of marriage must change.
You can no longer possibly claim the institution of marriage exists to encourage children to be born into the wedlock of their biological parents if you are giving the same benefits to a class of couplings, same-sex couplings, that by definition (rather than by happenstance as with infertile couples), cannot produce children.
That is why gays argue that its good for society to encourage coupling. It may be true, but that is a radiacal change to the focus of the institution. One that takes it off creating ideal circumstances for children and puts in on creating ideal circumstances for adults.
AE, again you end up positing a difference between the reproductive methods used by infertile straight couples who want to reproduce, and those used by gay couples who want to reproduce. Sorry, I’m not understanding it.
Remember, a straight couple where one or both partners are sterile is just as much "incapable by definition" of reproducing as any gay couple. Sterile or half-sterile straight couples and gay couples are morally and reproductively the same.
BUT – One more disclaimer that that equivalence, or what people call "equality", is NOT (or is no longer) my reason for supporting gay marriage. The benefit to society of having people (even gays) settle down, is. Especially with all the laws NDT points out, I do not think the exclusion of gays from marriage is the world’s worst injustice; I just think it’s kind of dumb move, on society’s part.
As for the focus of the institution "changing" to the welfare of the 2 adults – come on. Adult welfare is, and always has been, a key purpose of marriage. A thing can have multiple key purposes. The new family always begins with the adults. A couple without children are still a family. A couple who don’t serve and enhance each other’s welfare, though, are a troubled/broken family – at best.
Two words: Mark Bingham.
Sigh, its a difficult point to get and I know I’m doing a piss poor job of explaining. Let me try again.
You are talking about the individual reasons people get married. I am talking about the reason government encourages and subsidizes marriage. Two very different things.
It’s true that there could be more than one key purpose to marriage, but that is up to the people through their legislatures to decide. And legislatures are not talking about adult welfare — indeed, I dont like the idea of my tax dollars going to adult welfare at all — what they are saying is that marriage laws exist to encourage children to be born into wedlock.
Encouraging all men and women to take part in marriage furthers that purpose, even if some of them happen to be infertile. Allowing same sex couples to marry does not and cannot further that purpose. In fact, there is a good argument that it would be contrary to that purpose as some people who might otherwise enter into a straight marriage might choose to enter into a gay marriage instead. The focus of the institution necessarily flips from children to adults.
Now, is it in society’s best interest to subsidize all couplings? Perhaps. perhaps not. The more I think about it, the less sense it makes. Why should I give my tax dollars to the government so they can give them to two adults who are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves? But either way, we have an obligation to face facts that we are indeed asking society to change that definition, and we are obligated to objectively look at what is in society’s best interest, not just our own.
"…marriage laws exist to encourage children to be born into wedlock. Encouraging [sterile] men and women to take part in marriage furthers that purpose… Allowing same sex couples to marry does not…"
Would you say that’s a fair excision of the core of the argument I’m asking you about?
"Why should I give my tax dollars to the government so they can give them to two adults who are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves?"
Are you talking gays, or straights? Either way: So you don’t have to spend other tax dollars and insurance (cost) dollars. E.g., on quite so many VD clinics. Or on (so many) rape clinics. Or on (so many) AIDS clinics. Or on (so many) mental hospitals, suicide lines and trauma wards. Or on (so many) emergency room visits, because the single guy is stuck for someone to drive him to the regular doctor, or apply the medicine late at night in that spot he can’t do himself. Or on (so many) fire agent visits, because the single gal is stuck for someone to make sure she did turn off the computer or the burner. Etc. On average, or on the margin, 2 people who have each other as their first help, are not quite so often burdening society first.
No, its not a fair excision, it changes the entire meaning of what I said, which I understand helps you make your argument better, but it is not what I said.
I’ve really repeated and paraphrased the argument as best as I can ’til I am very much blue in the face. If I am just not explaining the argument well enough, then I apologize and suggest you go read the court decisions, because I assure you, they get the argument and they agree with it.
As for your last paragraph… that was an awfully big load of socialism for someone who calls himself "ILoveCapitalism".
I should cough up my money to pay for some other able bodied person to get to the hospital??? Praytell why shouldnt they pay to get themselves to the hospital???
So I should give my money to other americans because one of them might take care of the other if the other needed it? But if Im subsidizing it, then arent *I* the one taking care of them? and what happens when one dies? who takes care of the other? Oh let me guess…. me? How does this benefit society exactly?
I do have a horrible tendency to sound snarky when i don’t intend to. hope u wont take it that way
AE, no offense taken. Let’s leave it that I still don’t get your argument, then. What I excised, is what I was able to understand from what you wrote. It’s pretty clear to me that I am going to have kids someday and when I do, gay marriage will help them to be born in wedlock.
As for the rest – You are taking my argument (or what I wrote) in kind of a picayune way. The benefits of a culture where masses of people pair off, and it is relatively easy even for the marginal cases to do so (Britney Spears notwithstanding), are manifold and numerous. And that society somehow ‘blanks out’ when it comes to gays, leaving them largely to fend for themselves, is pretty dumb on society’s part. But let’s leave it that neither of us is quite getting the other’s argument. I respect us both for trying.
One last point – the Court decision you quote:
hasn’t helped me understand. It’s just court X’s description of what legislature Y is "entitled" to believe. Whether the belief is correct, is another question. It sounds as if the Court is saying, *reducing* the number of couples who could marry (by excluding gay couples) will *increase* the proportion of children raised in marriage. Especially since gay couples have kids in some cases, that’s counter-intuitive. I should think that ending welfare subsidies for single parents, making divorce a little more difficult for everyone, and extending marriage to gays, are three ways we could directly have more kids being raised in wedlock, with at least one biological parent (better than none). OK, I’ll stop – sorry for running on.
Not so fast. My inability to marry someone of the "same gender" is based on my own gender. That concept–"same gender"–does not exist outside of its correlation with my own gender. If my sex were different, then the "same gender" would also be different. And so my ability to marry a man, a right (or privilege) that all women enjoy, is denied to me solely because of my gender.
It’s not denied to me based on my criminal record, my citizenship status, or even my sexual orientation. The only reason I’m unable to marry a man is my own gender, a quality over which I have no control. That is sex discrimination.
Did you have a response to the toothpaste example? Do you think it would be discrimination if the law stated that black people may only purchase white toothpaste, and vice versa? Or would you also consider that to be fair, because everyone would be prohibited from buying their same-colored toothpaste?
Where’s your logic, NorthDallasThirty?
Phil,
I don’t think we win this argument by appealing to the extreme social conservatives. I think we win by showing couples like my friends Ed and Paul who have been together for 27 years to the people on the fence or with no strong feelings on this issue. Why can’t couples like this be legally married? Look them in the face and tell them why their love is not as good as other people’s. Explain to them why they are not entitled to the same freedoms as everyone else.
#75 – Houndentenor – I think you’re thinking of, The Liberal Gay Agenda. You know, that whole whining appeal to "equality" and "Why can’t we be entitled [your word] to be considered by everyone as just as good as them?" The gay community already has a lot of people working on that.
*BANGS HEAD ON DESK*
Americans do not pay taxes to subsidize marriage to make a statement about love!
You are free to "marry" whomsoever you choose. You can do it in a church, you can do it in your home, you can do it in a park, you can do it underwater for crying out loud. You can invite all your friends, you can invite thousands of people youve never met in your life, you can draw up legal contracts, you can have a cake, and serve alder smoked salmon and crudite, you can wear a tuxedo, you can wear a suit, you can wear a vera wang sleeveless gown with beaded bodice, crystalline trim and a train that goes from here to Schenectady! You can even find priest to officiate.
What you cannot have is all the incentives and subsidies that we give to straight couples to encourage them to tie the knot so that when children are born, they are born into a tangle of legal knots so tight they cant abandon their kids without major financial and emotional PAIN!
And you cant have that for one very clear reason… gay couples as an entire class, are incapable of fulfilling the behavior government is trying to encourage in the first place: kids being raised by their biological parents.
Yes, you are capable of fulfilling other behaviors that may be beneficial to society, but you are NOT fulfilling the behavior society is trying to encourage. You cant!
That makes it incumbent upon you to say, "hey, society, wouldnt it be a good idea if we encouraged thus and so!" But that is not what you are doing, that is not what any of you are doing. you are all saying in one form or another, "treat me equally for doing something completely different!"
It sounds like what you mean to say is that there is discrimination (between men and women), but that this discrimination is justified.
Do you believe that this discrimination is justified? I don’t get a sense that you really support same-sex marriage.
This is true. But no state in the union bans women who can’t get pregnant from participating in a legal state marriage.
If you want to pick a nit, fine. Men are being denied a right that is granted to "infertile women."
It’s still discrimination, and it has nothing to do with children.
The reason that infertile women are granted this right is because they are women. Obviously, it’s not because they can bear children. I’m sorry, but the "bearing children" example is a red herring.
Of course, the toothpaste example is offensive! I’m not proposing such a system; I think it would be ludicrous. However, I also find the current system where gender is a factor in granting marraige licenses to be ludicrous. If you share this view, but for different reasons, you really have a weird way of showing it.
YES! That is precisely what I am saying, BUT not in the way you mean it.
The law discriminates between men and women in many instances, because they are different in ways that are significant. Women bear children, men do not. That is a significant difference. The law recognizes it. Babies come from heterosexual couplings, and exclusively from heterosexual couplings. They never come from homosexual couplings. That is a significant difference. The law recognizes it. That you refuse to is completely irrational and insane.
WRONG! infertile women do not have the "right" to marry a person of the same sex. No woman has the right to marry a person of the same sex. They only have the "right" to marry a man, and men only have the "right" to marry a woman. Everyone in society has the "right" to marry a person of the opposite sex, and no one has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex.
You are confusing the reasons individuals choose to get married with the reasons society encourages it. Yes, many if not most people get married because they are in love. Guess what? Many do not. Ever hear of arranged marriages?
The REASON arranged marriages have existed for millenia, the REASON the government doesnt ask you if youre in love when you get married is because while love may be very important to YOU, it has absolutely nothing to do with societies interest in seeing people get married. The reason society, and government have an interest in people getting married is to make sure lots of new little citizens are born and that they are raised in the best situation possible. That is why we give benefits to encourage opposite sex couples to marry.
Then please explain why people have been entering into arranged marriages for thousands of years.
Oh, no, you misunderstand me. What is offensive is that you would compare your significant difference from heterosexual couples to the completely insignificant difference of skin pigmentation. Black people are capable of doing everything white people are capable of. Gay people are NOT and will never be capapble of doing with eachother everything straight people can do with eachother. Your comparison is what’s offensive.
Of course I dont share it. Its asinine. its not ludicrous to treat homosexuality as if its incapable of producing children, because it cant! its completely rational to recognize the truth and completely irrational and delusional to try to deny it as you are doing.
Do I think society should value homosexuals? Absolutely! Do I think it would be beneficial to society if gays entered into committed relationships? Absolutely! Do I think the law should encourage it? Probably. But the only rational and the only honest pretense for going about it is to drop this delusional nonsense that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality and instead propose to society, that yes, our relationships are different, but they can be of benefit to society too…and then explain how.
If both parties to an arranged marriage don’t consent to it, an arranged marriage is rape.
What’s offensive is your suggestion that black people only deserve the same rights as white people because they are capable of doing the same things; that somehow rights and privileges are tied to abilties, and that this is somehow a good thing. That’s an obnoxious view of civil rights. The reason that a black person–or a white person, a post-menopausal woman, a disabled person, or a little person–deserves the same rights as everyone else is because their dignity is inherent, not earned through their proficiency at a skill.
I support treating all adult couples that are incapable of treating children the same. Based on your post, I don’t really get the impression that you support same-sex marriage. I think you’re a troll.
"treating children" should read "producing children."
What’s offensive is your suggestion that black people only deserve the same rights as white people because they are capable of doing the same things; that somehow rights and privileges are tied to abilties, and that this is somehow a good thing.
Well, in that case, our denying children the right to marry because they don’t have the ability to fully vet and make good decisions is offensive and illegal too, isn’t it?
And meanwhile, to Houndentenor’s "Ed and Paul" example, mainly because we should show them the kind of behavior that gays and lesbians who demand marriage equality and claim they’re committed to each other practice.
Funny, I haven’t seen any of the leftist "Equality" organizations denounce this. I guess it must be normal for monogamous and traditional married gay couples to be sexually assaulting underage boys.
And finally, the use of infertile heterosexual couples simply boils down to this; you are using a tiny, tiny minority of couples who cannot have their own biological children to justify the inclusion of couples of whom the vast majority are completely incapable of having their own children.
Finally, Phil, here in California, an enormous number of gays and lesbians made it clear in 2004 that <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/20/MNGSL8ROMN1.DTL"> they did not want to follow the same rules and be subject to the same limitations of married couples</a>. They thought, for instance, that it was "unfair" that they be responsible for each other’s debts, even though married people have been for years.
And you know what? Every one of these people is probably out on the street whining for "marriage equality".
Nope. Try again. Any straight couple that marries when the woman is past menopause, is infertile. That is not a "tiny, tiny" minority. It is a LOT of couples.
Phil, you are extremely intellectually dishonest, which is no surprize because your entire argument is predicated on the intellectually dishonest claim that homosexuality is as valuable to society as heterosexuality is. I hate to burst your delusional bubble, and your clear desire to percieve yourself as a victim, Â but society reproduces itself exclusively through heterosexuality. Period. I’m sorry this fact causes you so much distress, but your feelings not withstanding, it remains fact. That your argument refuses to acknowledge it makes you irrational.
Nice evasion of the question, again showing your intellectual dishonesty. What about the vast majority of arranged marriages in which the parties consent? If society’s interest in marriage doesnt revolve around procreation, then please explain why consentual and loveless arranged marriages have existed for millenia.
No, its not offensive at all, if ONLY black people were able to reproduce the law would be entirely justified to recognize it and treat them differently where that ability is concerned. My argument is that the law should recognize the truth, your argument is that the law should ignore the truth.
And yet more evidence that you are just a blatant liar, I clearly said there is NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between black people and white people,
Notice you had to leave out the main point of the argument in order to spin your completely dishonest point. The irrefutable fact that you keep ignoring over and over again.
Quit being a liar. Quit being a victim. Accept the truth, and base your arguments on it, rather than basing your arguments on lies.
The truth is that heterosexuality and only heterosexuality reproduces society, and the law is therefore entirely justified to encourage heterosexual couplings.
The only intellectually honest argument for gay marriage is to acknowledge this irrefutable fact of life, stop perpetuating the lie that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality, stop pretending to be victims when we are not, and instead make the case that homosexual marriage can ALSO be benificial to society and should therefore be encouraged.
The truth shall set you free.
Here you go ILC, perhaps this is the approach that you will understand,
Heterosexuality and only heterosexuality reproduces society therefore the law is entirely justified in encouraging heterosexual couplings in general without singling out individual infertile couples.
The truth has many relevant parts here.
One truth is that gay and lesbian couples have the same reproductive capabilities as infertile straight couples – and there are a lot of infertile straight couples; some of whom even reproduce.
Another truth is that marriage has multiple key purposes and benefits from society’s standpoint; benefits which accrue to society, even when no reproduction is involved. Which is why society grants marriage to infertile couples. Of which gay couples are, objectively, merely another species.
North Dallas Thirty- I’m so glad to see someone else gets it!
Sorry AE, but your conclusion still doesn’t logically follow from your premises.
"Heterosexuality and only heterosexuality reproduces" is true when, and only when, you are talking about the level of genetics / sperm-and-egg. (And even that will only be true another few years – but I’ll stick to the present, and hence grant you the point.) The act of heterosexual intercourse is helpful but not required for reproduction, as any sperm bank will attest. Likewise, the heterosexuality (i.e., different genders) of the married partners who are going to raise the baby, is helpful but not absolutely required.
Moreover, even if your first premise were true: The statement "the law is entirely justified in encouraging heterosexual couplings in general without singling out individual infertile couples" in no way follows. Quite the opposite. If the promotion of heterosexual fertility and reproduction is our paramount concern, then logically, the law **should and must** exclude infertile couples (whether heterosexual or homosexual). The fact that the law fails to exclude infertile heterosexual couples is prima facie evidence that other concerns are operative in marriage law; i.e., that, from society’s standpoint, marriage is desirable for non-reproductive couples as well as reproductive ones.
I largely agree with you about Phil, victimhood, gays who whine for equality, arguing for gay marriage on its benefit to society (more than us), etc. I just don’t agree entirely with all you’ve said 😉
It’s ok ILC, you will agree with me by the time I’m done with you. :^)
And I’m sorry, but if your logic were, well, logical, then we couldn’t have laws that encourage carpooling without excluding all the multi-passenger cars that don’t contain multiple drivers, like moms driving their kids to soccer practice. And yet we have precisely such laws. America is replete with laws that encourage a general behavior without excluding each and every exception individually. (look at the tax code) All of them entirely constitutional. So it is your logic, not mine that is flawed.
A very begrudging, round-about and, I would argue, fanciful way of admitting I’m right, but I’m glad we agree.
that may be true, but it is up to the people to decide which purposes it wishes to encourage through its law, and the legislatures have made clear the purpose they are interested in encouraging is children being raised by their biological parents. That there are other benefits does not mean that society must endeavor to encourage all of them.
You are arguing they don’t have the right to encourage a general behavior without specifically excluding every exception. There is a whole raft of legislation, challenged and upheld, that says you’re wrong.
It strikes me as sad that so many gay people dont understand the alienation they’re causing for themselves by continuing to push for gay marriage. How many times does a State have to change its Constitution to make it clear to courts that "no" society does not want to redefine it’s basic social building block.
Get over it.
It doesnt cause alienation as long as you admit to yourself that heterosexuality and homosexuality are different, and then make the case to society that "here is something different that would also be good to encourage" That ends up being nothing more than a sales pitch.
But I think you’re very right that it causes alienation to keep trying to tell society that gay relationships are the same as straight relationships. Because society is going to slam the door in your face everytime on that one. Nobody wants to buy a load of crap. And look what that approach has done to Andrew Sullivan. Believing a lie can be very destructive.
AmericanElephant, I’m going to try to respond to your message without stooping to the ad hominems that you do.
What about them? If your method of choosing a marital partner is leaving it up to your parents, then that’s your business. It’s another way of doing it, and it might not be my choice, but it’s still an adult exercising their right to choose a partner. (You could compare it to a man who rolls some dice to decide what to wear each day. Although it seems that he is giving up his right to choose an outfit, it’s still his choice to roll the dice. So your example isn’t really relevant to the argument you’re making. I certainly haven’t suggested that the state should police, or enforce, love.
On the other hand, if you’re talking about arranged marriages where the spouses are married against their wishes, then you’re talking about rape.
Dude, go back up and read my post. I never said that you said there was a difference between white and black people. What you said, twice, is that
The implication of your remark is that, the reason black people are equal to white people is because they are "capable of doing everything white people are capable of."
I disagree. I do not believe the equality of black people (or any other race) is based on their "capabilities." It’s inherent. Even if a person isn’t capable of doing everything that I can, he is still my equal.
I’m responding to your argument by rejecting the premise on which it is based. The dignity and humanity of fellow humans is not based on their abilities or skills.
<blockquote> The truth is that heterosexuality and only heterosexuality reproduces society, and the law is therefore entirely justified to encourage heterosexual couplings. </blockquote>
So you spent this much time refuting my case for gay marriage, and….you’re for it, right? You support same-sex marriage?
If it were on a ballot, would you vote for it? Or would someone have to prove the benefits to you first?
Ah yes, like when you accused me of lying and called me a troll. At least you’re consistently intellectually dishonest.
What about them? You claimed the institution of marriage had nothing to do with children.
If it doesnt have anything to do with children, why have arranged, loveless marriages existed for millenia? Love how you had to throw in a red herring about rape. Is everything in life victimhood to you?
Then how come you can get a drivers license and a blind person cant? Sorry, youre wrong again.
For the 400th time. The law is rational and recognizes the truth and thus treats people differently based on significant differences and, that is, their abilities — and treat them the same when their differences are insignificant. You are an irrational, wont admit the truth when you are beaten to a bloody pulp with it (as I am now doing) and think theres no difference between refusing to sell a sandwich to someone because of the color of their skin and society refusing to believe your bald-faced lie that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality.
Again, quit being a liar. Quit being a victim. Accept the truth, and base your arguments on it, rather than basing your arguments on lies.
I love when tradionalists (I am one) state the purpose of marriage of for the stable upbringing of childern in a family. And then some nitwit will nitpick that "Well.. what if they dont have kids"..
What are they advocating? Some huge lybrthynth of an institution that dictates the timing of all pregancies because some co-dependent says it’s not fair that he can’t marrage the trick he’s been talking to for 3 days
I said I thought you were a troll. That was/is true. I do think it. If you’re not a troll, that doesn’t make me a liar; it makes me wrong. (At any rate, the troll comment preceded the declared effort not to engage in ad hominems.)
But if I’m misunderstanding where you’re coming from, I’m sorry. I’m just not seeing evidence of actual support for same-sex marriage.Â
I didn’t contend that marriage has nothing to do with children; the "it" in the quoted sentence was "discrimination," as in "It’s still discrimination, and this discrimination has nothing to do with children."
…and again, if you’re contending that marriage is solely about spawning biological children, then how do you claim to support gay marriage?
Clearly, both of us think there’s more to marriage than just spawning bioligical children, so either you’re playing devil’s advocate or you don’t really support it. (See "troll" comment above.)
It’s not like there are some blind people who can get a driver license and some who can’t.
…and thus it’s not a reasonable analogy. Everyone (if we’re talking about adult citizens) has a chance at a driver license if they can pass the tests. We don’t say that "star-bellied sneetches are blind, and thus they can’t have a driver license, but since sneetches with no stars typically have good vision, we will give driver licenses to the starless sneetches even when they’re blind."
Were their a "fertility test" to determine who can get married, fine. Men would be unable to marry men, and so would millions of infertile women. Then we’d have a larger coalition to argue, as I do and you purport to, that marriage has benefits beyond just creating a framework to raise children.
Was their some evidence in your post that you support same-sex marriage? If so, I missed it. All I got from you was "Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal!" "Marriage is about children!" and "Gay couples can’t have kids!" That’s a stunning endorsement if I ever heard one.
Proud to have ya on the team, AE.
Interracial marriage – Loving v Virginia was decided by Judges – not the voters. Do we want the voters to decide on the specifics of marriage/divorce law? Also, why is this area selectively exempt from judicial review? Why not just overturn Marbury v Madison and NOT allow courts to overturn legislation?
As far as "strict constructionists" go, Scalia – despite his claims – is not one – since he has said publicly that Government derives it’s legitimacy from God. Not true. The constitution mentions "We the People…" There is also mention of "no religious test" and the first amendment – something that Scalia and other theocrats don’t seem to understand.Â
"I called you names and accused you of lying before I self-righteously declared that I wouldn’t engage in ad hominems like you"
Yeah, that pretty much sums up your "intellectual honesty".
I contend, as I have all along that society gets to decide what the purpose of marriage is, that they have, through their legislatures and initiatives, have reiterated that they want the purpose to be encouraging the ideal environment for children to be raised in (that is, in a legally binding relationship between their biological parents), that gays are not victims under this scenario, and that if we want government to recognize and society to encourage gay marriage, we need to convince the people that it is of benefit to society.
No. Unlike you, I see that society has a huge interest in encouraging children to be born into legally binding relationships between their biological parents. Unlike you, I see that current marriage law does precisely this. Unlike you, I am able to recognize that this is a far more important, and of far more consequence to society than encouraging monogomous homosexuality. And unlike you, I am able to put the best interests of society ahead of my own selfish desires. And because I am able to understand these things, and you are not, I am able to take a very objective look at the question of whether gay marriage would be good for society, and good for the institution of marriage, while you wallow in false-victimhood.
"if you don’t agree with me, you’re a troll!" Add simple-minded to intellectually dishonest.
It wasnt an analogy. You made the asinine claim that people’s equality is "inherant" and not based on their abilities, and that the law cannot treat people differently based on their abilities. I simply was blowing your asinine argument out of the water.
there is a fertility test. You have to belong to one of the sexes that can procreate, and you have to marry someone of the sex that your sex must procreate with in order to produce a baby, namely, "the opposite sex".
Just like ILC, you are making the argument that in order to encourage carpooling, the law must exclude all multi-passenger cars that do not contain multiple drivers, who wouldnt be riding together otherwise(like a mom taking kids to soccer practice, or a husband and wife going to a movie together), from using the carpool lane — sorry, you’re wrong again. It is not constitutionally or otherwise necessary, in fact it would be impossible, to individualy exclude every possible exception to a thing in order for the law to generally encourage that thing.
It is absolutely not a stunning endorsement of gay marriage, but they are all irrefutable facts that your arguments for gay marriage either ignore or attempt to refute.
Don’t you see a problem when you are basing your arguments — indeed the entire purpose of your argument seems intent on refuting the truth? I sure as hell do. That’s why I make entirely differnt arguments from you. Mine are all cognizant of the truth. You should try it. Its liberating.
But the simple fact is that this isnt about what’s good for society to you. This is about victimhood for you. You want society to pat you on the head and tell you being gay is ok and that it’s just as good as heterosexuality. I know it’s not. I know straight people can do something miraculous, wonderful, and that is of tremendous value, indeed is invaluable to society, that my relationships cannot do –they can create human life.
Those are the facts of life. You are not a victim! DEAL WITH THEM! Get over your denial. Quit asking society to tell you homosexuality is just as good for society as heterosexuality because its clearly not. It doesnt mean youre not a good person. It doesnt mean you dont have a great deal to offer society. It doenst even mean that youre not a better individual than many straight individuals. it just means you finally have faced the truth and accepted it.
Then, when you finally face the truth about what you are, look inside yourself and find your own self-worth instead of askng others to bestow it upon you. Even if they were willing to, they cant. Then, when you have stopped being in denial, have faced the truth, and know who and what you are and how you are of benefit to society, then and only then, come back to the issue and argue your case based on reality. I promise, the truth will set you free, and you will be a much happier person for it.
Then it’s not based on an ability, AmericanElephant, it’s based on membership in a class.
Dude, that’s a wonderful comparison! I’d be perfectly happy if marriage law worked like carpool laws. You see, it’s not just that the law doesn’t carve out exceptions for mothers taking kids to soccer practice, etc.– the law doesn’t carve out any exceptions, for any reason. All cars with multiple passengers can use the High Occupancy Vehicle lane. We don’t say that women are allowed to drive with kids in the car (because they’re more likely to be the caregiving parent) and that men will get a ticket if they do. That would be sexist bullshit, based solely on gender.
So what’s your argument for gay marriage? What are the benefits you see?
I’m trying to find an argument you’ve made that wasn’t in opposition to same-sex marriage. Whether or not you find my approach to be reasonable, contradicting a bad argument for a proposition is not the same as supporting the proposition.
test
Re 97/Eva Young
>Interracial marriage – Loving v Virginia was decided by Judges – not the voters. Do we want the voters to decide on the specifics of marriage/divorce law?
Um.. yes.. This is a Republic isn’t it? Last I checked we’re not a judicial tryranny.
>Also, why is this area selectively exempt from judicial review? Who says it isn’t?
>Why not just overturn Marbury v Madison and NOT allow courts to overturn legislation?Congress has the authority under Article III to deny appealate juristriction of the Supreme Court for anything it choose.
>As far as "strict constructionists" go, Scalia – despite his claims – is not one – since he has said publicly that Government derives it’s legitimacy from God. Not true. I dispute your paraphrase. He probably meant that our rights as a people come from God.. including Liberty. And that as a People it’s our right to institute a Government and elect representives who will do our business.He is probably saying that Judicial tryanny is an abuse of government.>The constitution mentions "We the People…" There is also mention of "no religious test" and the first amendment – something that Scalia and other theocrats don’t seem to understand. What you don’t understand is that acknoweldging God is not establishing a religion and is not a theocracy.You people who so easily cry about America being oppressive, a theocracy, a NAZI state, should actually try living in one before insulting us.
Re 97/Eva Young
>Interracial marriage – Loving v Virginia was decided by Judges – not the voters. Do we want the voters to decide on the specifics of marriage/divorce law?
Um.. yes.. This is a Republic isn’t it? Last I checked we’re not a judicial tryranny.
>Also, why is this area selectively exempt from judicial review?Â
Who says it isn’t?
>Why not just overturn Marbury v Madison and NOT allow courts to overturn legislation?
Congress has the authority under Article III to deny appealate juristriction of the Supreme Court for anything it choose.
>As far as "strict constructionists" go, Scalia – despite his claims – is not one – since he has said publicly that Government derives it’s legitimacy from God. Not true.Â
I dispute your paraphrase. He probably meant that our rights as a people come from God.. including Liberty. And that as a People it’s our right to institute a Government and elect representives who will do our business.He is probably saying that Judicial tryanny is an abuse of government.
>The constitution mentions "We the People…" There is also mention of "no religious test" and the first amendment – something that Scalia and other theocrats don’t seem to understand.
What you don’t understand is that acknoweldging God is not establishing a religion and is not a theocracy.You people who so easily cry about America being oppressive, a theocracy, a NAZI state, should actually try living in one before insulting us.
Let me go you one better: I do not believe in the meaningfulness or validity of "race" or racial categories *at all*. Race is a fundamentally invalid, useless concept – like the concept of unicorns. Genetically, races literally don’t exist; there are no races. "Racist", though, is a meaningful concept: if it refers to someone (anyone) who thinks or speaks in racial categories.
What a bizarre excuse. They don’t sell cluelessness that thick in the small-size cans.
AE, for your part:
That’s not a fair or accurate representation of my argument, which, again, you haven’t understood. Please don’t try to stuff words in my mouth. Please notice that, up at #68, I *asked you* if I had understood your argument, or if such-and-such (that I had managed to understand) would be a fair representation. I gave you the chance to say "no, it isn’t". I would appreciate the reciprocal courtesy.
And BTW, carpool laws make a great analogy in favor of my argument. In order to drive in the carpool lane, you must actually be carrying multiple people. It’s not enough that your vehicle could theoretically carry multiple people, or that your vehicle is the same type (heterosexual? lol) used by others who carry multiple people. It’s not even enough that you have carried multiple people in the past, or might decide to in the future. You have to actually be doing it, to use the carpool lane.
If our marriage laws were so consistent – and, IF as you claim, reproduction and legitimacy-of-offspring were not merely "a" key concern (which they clearly are!), but were "the" key concern to the exclusion of others (such as the individual and social welfare of having people pair off, even if they don’t reproduce): then our marriage laws would require that you actually be fertile, to get married. Not that you could theoretically be fertile, or that your partner-pairing is the same type (heterosexual) as others who have been fertile. The medical tests would include, say, a sperm count for the man, and a doctor’s declaration that the woman is pre-menopausal.
But they don’t.
Post 105 makes a lot of sense and is perfectly reasonable. It’s also phrased better than what I wrote.
As far as calling AE a troll (a loaded word in a gay forum, I suppose), my point in picking a nit was not to suggest that I wasn’t being rude, self-righteous, or insulting. All of those things may be true of me. My point was simply that I wasn’t being dishonest: I called AE a troll because I think he’s a troll, in that he purports to support same-sex marriage, but I just don’t get a sense that this is true from his posts. When I asked him, "If it were on a ballot, would you vote for it?" I didn’t get a response.
Being a troll doesn’t automatically make all of his arguments faulty. It’s the invalidity of some of those arguments that makes them faulty.
Sorry ILC, but I apparently understand your argument better than you do:
Actually it doesn’t. But it does perfectly illustrate how your argument is wrong. You just misrepresent what a carpool lane is for in order to make your argument.
The purpose of a carpool lane is not to get multiple people in a car, the purpose is to get cars off the road by encouraging multiple drivers to "pool" together in one car. Hence the name "car-pooling."(Co-workers going to work together, neighbors going to the store together for example.) Thats why they exist — to get cars off the road. Yet you do not have to be "carpooling" in order to use the carpool lane. There are dozens of examples. A mother driving her kids to school can use the carpool lane. But her trip does nothing to get additional cars or drivers off the road. Shes not pooling any cars together.
And I don’t think even you would be ridiculous enough to argue that a mother taking her kids to school does anything more to get more cars off the road than I am if I am driving alone to work. Yet she can use the carpool lane with her car full of rugrats, and I cannot.
Contrary to your arguments, this law exists to encourage a behavior even though it doesn’t exclude everyone who is not fulfilling the desired goal, it only excludes the most obvious exception, cars with only one occupant. And yet its all perfectly legal and perfectly constitutional.
Yet here you are repeating the same bogus argument. That in order for the "key" concern of marriage to be procreation (or getting cars off the road) the marriage laws (or traffic laws) must exclude everyone who isn’t going to reproduce (or exclude everyone who isn’t actually cutting the number of cars on the road). If your argument were valid, carpool lanes would have to exclude mothers with kids, and people who live together doing something together, and everyone who isn’t actually cutting the number of cars on the road. And yet, they don’t because your argument is, I’m sorry, ridiculous.
The idea that the government can’t generally encourage procreating without actually forcing people to commit to procreating or subjecting them to a bevy of intrusive tests is beyond lame.
And I hate to break it to you, ILC, because you will probably protest, but you seem not to realize that your argument is also based in victimhood. That you are being unfairly discriminated against. You may not like it, but that’s what you are arguing. Fortunately, you’re incorrect.
(Oh, and just for the record, your vehicle doesn’t even have to be carrying multiple passengers to drive in the carpool lane, single occupancy motorcycles are also allowed, so theres that gaping hole in your argument as well.)
DUDE! It most certainly does carve out exceptions. The most obvious exception! People who are driving alone are not allowed to use the carpool lanes. Yet like your assertion that homosexuals are just as capable of procreating as an infertile couple, single drivers are fulfilling the purpose of the carpool law every bit as much as a woman driving her kids to school. Yet she is allowed to use the carpool lane, and they are not.
Are we talking about couples of diminished fertility, or couples who are completely infertile? If it’s the latter, then my "assertion" is a truism: homosexual couples are just as capable of procreating as an infertile couples.
Yes, they are, which is not at all. and a woman driving her kids to school is likewise in no way fulfilling the purpose of the carpool law, yet she gets to drive in the carpool lane with her rugrats while you do not when you drive to work.
Both contributing exactly the same nothingness to the purpose of the law, but she gets the perks and you do not.
completely constitutional.
There is, of course, a difference between that which is legal and that which is moral or ethical.
Do you think it is right that I cannot get married to a man?
I think — no, I know — you <b>can</b> get married to a man. You just cant get the state to pat you on the head give you all the goodies that they dole out to encourage procreating within a legally bound unit.
So do I think its "right" that you cannot get incentives to do something you are incapable of doing? Sure, there is nothing morally wrong with it.
Do I think it would be wise of society to also encourage homosexual monogamy? yes. But is anyone in the gay community even talking about gay monogamy in marriage? Other than a few conservatives, Hell no. Look at gay.com, look at Out magazine, etc theyre all suggesting that gay marriage is different from straight marriage.
In fact, I can almost quote one of them verbatim: They said, "lets face it, gays arent good at monogamy, ‘open marriages’ are here to stay" or something very close to that.
Do I think society should sanction gay marriage if they are going to make the institution less monogamous? hell no. it would be bad for marriage.
If someone can convince me that the majority of gays are just as concerned with upholding the ideals of monogamy in marriage as the rest of society is, then by all means Im for gay marriage. But I dont support sanctioning gay marriage unless and until gays views of the institution are more in line with society’s.
So, if a ballot measure came up tomorrow, allowing same-sex couples to marry, would you vote for it or against it?
I would vote against
Tomorrow? When the current thinking of the majority of the "gay community" seems to be that "open marriages" are just another lifestyle choice? I’d vote no. I’d like to vote yes, but that sort of attitude shows complete and utter disregard for the institution.
So, in your way of thinking, the benefits that gay marriage would provide for the gay couples who take advantage of it in a monogamous way take a back seat to the symbolic value of withholding those marriage protections from a community whose views you disdain.
And you say you’ll maintain this position until a point in time that is impossible to measure: when the "majority of the gay community" comes around. We don’t even know what the majority of the gay community thinks now.
If you made such a statement about any other group of adult citizens, you’d be considered a small-minded bigot. (Try it: substitute "blacks" or "Native Americans" or "people in wheelchairs" and say, "They don’t deserve marriage rights until a majority of them think _______." It’s a pretty icky statement for a human being who pretends to support liberty to make.)
You could have gay marriage only for those who can prove they’ve been in a relationship for at least a year, or for those who’ve had a baby. That would neatly provide support for monogamy and enable the state to focus their goodies at those with babies.