When I drove cross country last fall, I often turned off my CD player so as to better let my thoughts wander. A number of ideas came to me, some of which I have addressed on this blog. One of the first notions which which popped into my head, somewhere in Arizona or New Mexico on the first day of the journey, was to wonder if my ambivalence on gay marriage was related to how many gay advocates approached the issue.
As I read David Blankenhorn’s book this past week, his description of some of these advocates reminded me of my own encounters. They saw marriage as just a relationship between two people, nothing more than a “right.” They scorned monogamy and delighted in the institution’s decline.
Few saw the conversation on gay marriage as part of a means to strengthen the institution. Indeed, some expressly sought to weaken it.
I found it difficult to take seriously advocates whose understanding of marriage as a right defined by the Supreme Court’s landmark 1967 decision Loving v. Virginia, banning “miscegenation” laws, as if the concept originated in jurisprudence and its social and ritual aspects irrelevant.
That all changed when I started reading Jonathan Rauch’s Gay Marriage: Why It is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, particularly the chapter, “What Marriage is For” (which I have praised numerous times on this blog). He got at the meaning of this institution.
As fate would have it, at the same time I was reading the book, Jonathan was in LA. I went to hear him speak at A Different Light bookstore where he offered two anecdotes which showed that like Blankenhorn, he understood the debate on gay marriage involved the issue of marriage itself.
First, he mentioned a straight couple who came up to him after his talk and thanked him for reminding them what marriage was all about it; his words thus served to strengthen their marital bond. Then, he mentioned how when he presents the very same issues to gay activists, many who had a similar positive reaction, while his words caused others to question their own support for gay marriage. If marriage involves retreating from sexual liberation, they didn’t want it.
Given what that institution entails and some of the mores of our community, a real conversation on marriage is likely to trouble many gay people who favor a more libertine approach to sexuality.
If we really want gay marriage, we need to address that attitude.
Unless we do, we won’t be engaged in a conversation on marriage, but instead be redefining marriage to mean little more than two people who shack up together. Let’s hope more people like Jonathan Rauch come forward to get beyond the bland platitudes promoting “marriage equality” and point out the real benefits of marriage the institution.
Perhaps more people might favor gay marriage if its advocates could better articulate their understanding of and appreciation for this ancient social institution. But, then I’ve been saying that for about as long as I’ve been blogging.
Huh? Then why would one want to get married if they’re not interested in the responsibilities it entails? Just because “straight people do it” doesn’t seem like a good enough excuse for bad behavior.
I agree with you that the cause of marriage equality is not well-served by advocates who take the position “I demand the right to marry, even though I’d never actually want to participate myself in that quaint old institution.” But there are plenty of us who embrace the core values of marriage, who have married because we want to live those values, and who would like to have equal legal recognition of our marriages.
From my own perspective, I may sometimes focus on marriage as a legal right, separate from the social and ritual aspects, because frankly, that’s all that’s on the table. Socially and ritually, I already can marry and in fact have married, nearly seven years ago. Our family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and church brothers and sisters all saw the vows exchanged and recognized a marriage when they saw one. As a practical matter, the only thing that’s up for debate is whether some bureaucracy is going to stand between me and my husband when one of us is unconscious in the emergency room.
Thank you, Dan. Rauch’s book sounds worthy of reading and I’ll add it to my list. Certainly Chandler’s comments here are some that I find objectionable concerning the institution whether it involves same-sex couples or heterosexual ones.
Putting GAY MARRIAGE ahead of “protection in the workplace” and other basic human rights afforded by the constitution is counter productive.
Talk of “gay marriage” immediately brings religion into the conversation. This will ALWAYS keep us at a disadvantage.
Legal status of a couple can be resolved legally and a ceremony in the presence of friends and family can and does provide the bonds of marriage whether the government “says” it’s ok or not.
Many are concerned about health benefits for domestic partners…this is a “company issue” NOT a governmental issue. Again, the other issue is COST of healthcare.
I could go on and on…..
Thanks for the opportunity to share my thougths.
jeb
“How small of all that human hearts endure/That part which laws or kings can cause or cure!”
Something to ponder.
So it’s someone else’s fault that you are ambivent about marriage? I don’t buy it. I think you should look deep into yourself and ask why it is you don’t think you deserve what everyone else takes for granted. I’ll admit that I was once ambivalent about marriage until I sang at my friends’ wedding a couple of years ago and I got it. It’s not about that Jason and Erik live together or have sex or share a banking account. It’s that they share a life together and all of their friends and family came to celebrate that. Like they would do if they were straight. Not better, not lesser, just the same.
Figure out why you don’t believe you deserve that as much as your straight friends and family and I think you’ll discover the answer. The worst homophobia we face is from within ourselves, not from others.
I think Jeb ‘s comment gets to the heart of the issue for me. I think what we really need is to separate religious marriage from civil marriage. A church should be free to marry whomever it wants, but that doesn’t mean that marriage is valid when it comes to all the goodies and benefits. Further, I think making all couples go through the hoops and thought processes that my partner and I have to do to ensure that we are legally protected would be good. My parents have been married for over fifty years, and they are just now thinking through what happens when one of them dies or is incapacitated. I think the solution to the health care issue, which seems to be the big benefit that is mentioned most often, is to get it away from a work-based system and to and individual system.
Did you even read the post Houndenenor or just skim it? I was “wondering if,” i.e., speculating, asking. Certainly, the lack of seriousness of the advocates of gay marriage figures into my ambivalence.
But, the real reason (which I’ll explore in a later post) is the sexual distinction that lies at the essence of the meaning of marriage, a union between two individuals of different sex.
It’s not homophobia in the least, but recognition of difference.
marriage has always been and agreement between a man and a woman. Aside from that, it has changed its nature over time. Until relatively recently, it was primarily economic and legal. These couples had children and those children had to be fed and clothed. Family and friends were integral to the system. Friends were lifelong, and probably blood-related – especially women – because people never moved very far from home.
Now, things are different. Obviously. And other things must changed, especially marriage and the famly.
However. in looking at family law, the PRIMARY interest must be the children. Divorce is bad for children. Homes are good for children. Homes are more important that schools or playgrounds or wealth.
There is no good reason to include the words “of different sex” in that definition of marriage. When two people agree to join themselves together in marriage and agree to accept responsibility to love and care for each other (emotionally, physically, and economically), that is a good thing for them and a good thing for society. It doesn’t become a better thing for them or for society if they are a man and a woman, and it doesn’t become a worse thing if they are two men or two women.
The fundamental heart of marriage, and the reason we give married couples special rights and privileges, is that commitment to accept responsibility for the care of each other (and for any issue of the marriage, if there are any). I’ve never seen one good non-religious reason to limit marriage to only opposite-sex couples. (And the religious reasons are irrelevant, mostly because we should not be giving the religious beliefs of marriage opponents priority over the religious believes of marriage supporters.)
I think what we really need is to separate religious marriage from civil marriage.
Already done.
A church should be free to marry whomever it wants, but that doesn’t mean that marriage is valid when it comes to all the goodies and benefits.
Already true.
marriage has always been and agreement between a man and a woman.
Nope — and that’s even if you don’t factor in polygamy.
Historically and culturally speaking, marriage has usually involved an agreement between two men, with the woman as collateral to seal the bargain. The idea that a woman’s personal consent is relevant to the marital contract — in other words, that women have a voice and a choice where marriage is concerned — is in many respects still a very Western idea, and even in the West, it dates from the Enlightenment onward.
You’re right, GPW, to note that the meaning of marriage is at stake here. But for the most part, it’s not gay activists who wish to redefine it. (Those who do wish to redefine marriage promote a female-separatist view of the institution which denies that the Enlightenment ever occurred — basically, they’re still living in the Middle Ages.) There’s nothing in same-sex unions to alter the Western, Enlightenment-era concept of marriage as a love match between two rational human beings who can make their own decisions and form their own family unit.
Some opponents of SSM — like Maggie Gallagher — have attacked the concept of the “love match,” feeling that it’s focused too much on individual happiness. These people have offered some radical redefinitions of their own.
My opinion on this subject has changed from time to time but right now, Dan, I pretty much agree with what you’ve written.
First off, I realize my experiences with human beings may not be typical of others who read this blog. That being said, I just wish marriage meant more to married straight couples.
I’ve been dismayed over the years as I get to know more and more people and learn how many are unhappy in their marriages and stay together for the sake of the kids. And I can’t believe how naive I’ve been; for years I assumed that only 20-somethings and 30-somethings lived together a few years before tying the knot. But this past winter we opened up the local yacht club to snow birds who needed to rent slips for the season. I got a quick lesson in life! There was even a couple my age that had yet to make “it” legal.
And commitment doesn’t seem to mean much anymore.
Fifteen families built homes in our little development twelve years ago. In five of the households it was the second marriage one or both spouses. As the years passed seven other couples divorced. My wife and I and two other couples are the only first marriages still intact. And one of the couples would be in big trouble if adultery were still a crime!
Before her death, my sister spent over 30 years in a lesbian relationship with the same partner. I can count on one hand the number of straight couples I know who’ve been together and in love that long.
My twin sons are gay. They graduate from college this month ard have not yet sought serious relationships. I am hoping and praying that the 40 year marriage that my wife and I have will be an example for them. (It is too late for my sons to enjoy the satisfaction of the virgin thing) but my wife and I never slept with anyone else before our marriage, we’re still each other’s best friend and we’re as much in love as we were in June 1968. I tell my sons, including Trace, who is straight, that no matter what form of relationship they have — real marriage, civil union or some type of domestic partnership — I hope they enjoy the same commitment, fidelity and happiness their Mother and I have enjoyed in our marriage.
My son, Trace, if he ever settles down and finds a young woman with something more than physical attributes and an endless desire for sex, will have, if he so chooses, the right to enter into a sanctioned marriage and enjoy all of the traditions and legal privileges that come with it.
Sadly, my gay sons, Taylor and Tyler, are denied that choice. In many states they can’t even have the legitimacy a civil union provides. In some states there is no arrangement that can be recognized by a state.
That’s not just wrong. In a country that cherishes liberty and individual freedoms I find it intolerable and repugnant. If we ever get a Supreme Court that believes the 14th Amendment to the Constitution means what it says — and isn’t some evil tampering with original intent — my sons Taylor and Tyler will be able to shed their status as second class citizens and enjoy the rights afforded their older brother.
I hope I live to see it happen.
Once again, why don’t we look after ALL of us, partnered or otherwise, by persuing the goal of marriage when WE NEED other protections afforded to every single straight American?
Recall the fed attorney who was denied promotion to Indian affairs simple because of rumors that she was a gay woman. I doubt she would choose marriage over protection in the work place.
I had a lover for 10 yrs. We worked out insurance, legal docs, power of attorney etc……it’s not that difficult.
Notice how I am skillfully trying to change the subject back to the BASICS.
Jeb
…until Jason and Erik try to get pregnant and replenish society…the very reason government has an interest in marriage in the first place, and then its actually not the same at all.
Holy cow, why is this so difficult for gays to understand that producing children, something our relationships can never do, is very important to society! And that does make our relationships lesser and “not the same”.
Its delusional!
Do you not see the inherant contradiction in that statement?
Your children are free to marry whomever they wishm they are free to tie their finances to eachother, they are free to give eachother power of attorney among any number of other commitments and legal arrangements.
But you find it repugnant that in a country that values individual liberty like these, the government wont pat you on the head and give you a cookie for it?
The 14th amendment is still very much intact. You are being treated equally.
Something gays and lesbians desperately need to get through their thick skulls is that child bearing is incredibly important to society, and it is entirely possible and moral and non-discriminatory for society to encourage men and women to get and stay together toward that end. And it is not necessary for society to also encourage people of the same sex to get together in order for that to be fair!
Would it be good or beneficial for them to also do so? Perhaps. I think it would be. But it is not necessary to treat gay relationships the same as straight relationships because they are not the same. gays can never produce children.
Nor are any of the benefits we give to married couples “rights”. Not even straight people are entitled to have other people recognize their relationships. They are courtesies we extend to encourage a behavior that gays happen to be incapable of.
All adults are free to legally bind themselves to whomever they want, and free to break those commitments whenever they want. The government really has zero interest in getting involved in the relationships between adults. Adults, being adults, can take care of their own affairs. It is for the welfare of children, who cannot look after their own best interests, and ONLY for the benefit of children, that government has any interest in the marriage business to begin with.
Can you please show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to a job for any reason? Can you explain how forcing an employer to employ you when they dont want to is not infringing on their God given rights? Most noteably their right to associate with whomever they wish, which by the way, happens to be a constitutionally protected right? ANd finally can you please explain which “basic human rights” gays and lesbians are not already afforded?
I am desperately curious, because I happen to know that their are none.
I don’t have the cases in front of me, but I’ve seen plenty where the legal status cannot be made as concrete as a straight marriage and the costs can be outrageous. Of course, it varies from state to state.
I assume that where you going with this is that gay couples can get equal healthcare protection through their companies. That’s not always true. In a recent Michigan ruling, the court decided that the gay marriage ban PROHIBITS companies from offering benefits to same-sex couples.
Not always. Some cultures allow various forms of same-sex unions.
And if Jason & Erik have children through adoption, artificial insemination or perhaps through regular means (say one had a child prior to this relationship), what then? If society has an interest in strengthening the family bonds among heteros, why do you argue it doesn’t in this case?
You allow a glaring exception in the case of infertile hetero couples but deny the same for childless homo couples as well as homo couples that do have children. I fail to see the consistency in your reasoning, unless of course you just want to turn this into a discussion about natural law. In such a case, this brings up the question of homosexual relations in general and the intent of this blog and others like it. We have laws with as much historical precedent against the practice as those restricting marriage to heterosexual couplings (monogamous and polygamous). While some on this blog seem to argue against same-sex marriage for various reasons, they do not do likewise against homosexual relations in general. Natural law views homosexual relations as being “unnatural”, an argument that we find evidence of as early as Ancient Greece centuries ago. So how can you use a natural law argument on the one hand to argue against same-sex marriage yet fudge things when it comes to homosexuality in general? Most curious…
Of course. Yet where the 14th Amendment argument comes into play is is the unequal access to those “courtesies” or undue restrictions placed upon them to gain such access. I understand that most courts are not presently buying that argument and I personally believe that won’t change for a long time to come, yet let’s not forget that 14th Amendment arguments rejected in Plessy were reversed in Brown 60 years later. Even those who may cringe at the constitutional reasoning of Brown today would be loathe to say that segregation isn’t a violation of the 14th Amendment. Perhaps a more appropriate example is Loving, I doubt many today would agree that anti-miscenegation laws are in accordance with the 14th Amendment. The issue of same-sex marriage will undoubtedly be resolved largely through the political process, a very time-consuming and messy affair but in some ways perhaps better in the long run (sucks while going through it though). Today some people may argue that prohibitions against same-sex marriage are constitutional but I wager that once they do become law (probably 50 years from now) most will be singing a different tune and efforts to reverse them will be rejected just as strongly as we reject bans on interracial marriage today.
Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
With respect, the Michigan ruling prohibited the State from extending such benefits to public employees. It did not do likewise for private companies choosing to give such benefits. I didn’t see this mentioned, but I presum this means the State cannot also require private companies to offer such benefits as it does likewise with legally married heterosexual couples. Again, I believe such attitudes will change once same-sex marriage becomes “normalized” and challenges to this will provoke far different rulings. Yet don’t expect that until we are very old or sometime in the next generation. Btw, this doesn’t mean at all that we shouldn’t keep fighting for it but just to be realistic about what appears to be achievable. Frankly, repealing DADT and enacting ENDA are more important to me at the moment. Perhaps I’ll feel differently after those are accomplished…
I didn’t say that. I chose my words very carefully. I used the phrases “get pregnant” and “replenish society” intentionally. This is a fundamental service to society that heterosexuality and ONLY heterosexuality can perform. Moreover, society has long held that the ideal situation for children is to be raised by the man and woman that conceived them. Again, a function only heterosexuality can perform because only heterosexuality can conceive children (even if a whole laboratory of doctors act as intermediaries).
Society has a right to encourage it, and they do so by encouraging all men and women to partner up. The fact that a tiny minority are incapable of producing children is not relevant. It is not necessary for government to specifically exclude individuals who are individually physically incapable of performing the function because the law applies equally to everyone whether they can perform the function or not.
Same-sex couplings (I really cant believe I actually have to explain this) are an entirely different kind of relationship that cannot procreate as a rule, not as an exception. Its not that I gays are incapable of procreating, its that they are unwilling to partner with the person they procreate with, which is exactly what society is trying to get people to do in the first place, because they have determined that being raised by the two people who conceived you is the ideal situation.
Marriage law exists to encourage that ideal. You are arguing that society doesn’t have the right to encourage that ideal. And of course they do.
The “courtesies” I am talking about are incentives for a behavior. You don’t have a right to equal access to am incentive for a behavior you aren’t exhibiting in the first place.
The 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law. It requires that we treat people equally in all the ways they are fundamentally the same. There is no fundamental difference between a black man and a white man. They are exactly alike in every respect except the very superficial difference of pigmentation. And so the law must treat them equally. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are fundamentally different from each other — there is a very major and important difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality in that heterosexuality and only heterosexuality is where children come from. In all other respects homosexuals and heterosexuals are the same and must be treated the same, but the law is not required to pretend that this glaring and fundamental difference does not exist. Blind people are not allowed to drive, handicapped people are not allowed to sit in the exit aisle of an airplane, men are not allowed to use the womens restroom…
the 14th amendment requires that we treat things that are fundamentally the same equally. It doesn’t require that we ignore real and important distinctions.
Thanks. I missed that distinction the first time I read it. This other article spells it out much more clearly for those of us who are “comprehension challeged.”
Despite my mistake, I think that the point that I was trying to make still stands. Some argue that gay marriage isn’t really necessary because gays can get the same protections through legal and other means. Based on what I’ve read, that simply isn’t true, though it varies greatly by state.
I would agree that repealing DADT is a much higher priority, especially given the current WOT. I haven’t totally decided where I stand on ENDA yet.
AE: I agree with everything you said
American Elephant, please come back to this post Sunday or Monday so that I can respond to your points with which I disagree. I don’t have the time now since I asked that our plane leave at 3 p.m. But I will get back to you as soon as I return to the USA.
>in that heterosexuality and only heterosexuality is where children come from.
Nature isn’t concerned with the sexual orientation of the parties involved. It’ll make a child regardless of the sexual orientation — or marriage status — of the providers.
We humans are the ones who get into conniptions over the providers, be it about their race, class, nationality, religion or, in this case, sexual orientation.
GayPatriotWest, I don’t dare use names after my last error which was so offensive to some, your article is excellent.
American Elephant, are you a member of AFA or AFTAH or some other domestic terrorist group? Gay relationships are lesser because they can’t “naturally” produce children? That is a sick thing to say and if you are a gay person I am truly sorry that you are so negative about yourself. Society is not lessened by legalizing LGBT marriage, society is not threatened by it either. I don’t believe that anyone is advocating taking away the ability or “right” of heterosexual couples from producing kids and I am sure that the small percent of us that will not does not threaten the population or the American people. Get real, hate yourself but that’s your problem not those of us who accept our sexual orientation. And Vince P agrees, now what a surprise! The word therapy comes to mind.
Great comments, American Elephant! It’s easy for debate on this issue to become muddled, even for a hard-liner like myself. But your comment has offered a great deal of clarity to me because it was an astute, sobering reminder that there is a strong case to be made that 99.99% of the debate on this issue is really a gigantic red herring based solely on emotion. (Dave’s question at #30 regarding whether you’re a member of a domestic terrorist group is an example.) Marriage benefits aren’t about rewarding the wholesome young straight couple for being a perfect little picture of what a bigoted nation wants to reward solely because that’s what government is comfortable with. It just happens to be the investment with the most growth potential.
And as with all government benefits, some of its recipients take the check but fail to ultimately accomplish the goal for which the program was designed (divorce, multiple marriages, infertility, don’t want kids…) But as the Liberal argument goes on government benefits, just because a few people abuse the system (or in this case, simply don’t end up contributing to the beneficial result government is trying to foster), that’s no reason to abolish it. But like any demand for the expansion of a government program, it’s not enough to argue that it should be expanded simply because the benefits are desirable and other people who don’t qualify feel bad because they want the benefits too. Considering the government’s well-earned reputation for fiscal irresponsibility, there’s a case to be made that our government’s resistance to offering marriage benefits to every two-person unit that claims to be in love is one of the most sound fiscal policies it currently has. Your post has demonstrated that the most common, emotionally compelling arguments in favor of gay marriage (commitment, monogamy, acceptance, tolerance) aren’t just weak—they’re really non-arguments.
Of course, some advocates are seeing the light and starting to frame their arguments in terms of what government has to GAIN by expanding the program (societal stability and at least SOME promise–an unreliable one at best–that the union will acquire and raise one or more little future taxpayers), but without the biological component on their side, for now, the argument is dead in the water. In fact, your comment has made me realize just how narcissistic the equal protection approach to this issue really is–demanding the government freebie and not only failing to offer any rationale for why it should be given, but rather, indignantly labeling even the suggestion that there should be a sound rationale for granting the benefit as bigotry and hatred. The equal protection argument is essentially: “this hateful, irrational, insidious refusal to offer this handout to everyone regardless of eligibility must stop because everyone likes free stuff!†Put that on a bumper-sticker. And WORST OF ALL, the gay marriage advocates see nothing wrong with demanding their inclusion in the program by pointing out what a miserable failure it is and condemning its ELIGIBLE recipients as useless freeloaders, bilking the system for all it’s worth.
The comment offered by chandler in lasvegas is a TEXTBOOK example of this—creating whatever “family†you want; “civil rights issueâ€; what does monogamy have to do with it?; most of my married friends fu*k everyone but each other;…(yuck). And by the way, am I the only one who thinks chandler’s conveniently diverse spectrum of heterosexual married friends in comment #1–broadly diverse yet so demographically precise—that they could have been ordered as a set from the Franklin Mint? Seriously: “some†have open marriages; “some†have sexless marriages; “some†have marriages of convenience??????? Hmmm. That sure is some racy crowd you’re running with, chandler. Can anyone actually picture this group of apparently 8-10 heterosexual married couples all confiding in their gay friend chandler that they’re swingers, or pulling him aside at a cocktail party to let him know that they haven’t had sex in five years (?) Yeah. That certainly sounds like all the straight couples I know.
Either chandler is a shameless liar, OR he met and became friends with all of these couples through his job as a booker for HBO’s Real Sex series. I’m sorry, but I have to call bullsh*t. One of the few things heterosexual marriage has going for it is the fact that there is still at least SOME societal condemnation of the behavior chandler describes. Even those hetero couples who DO engage in such practices don’t put it out there for the world to see, much less tell their gossipy gay friends about it. And we all know why. Because it’s gross and they’re justifiably ashamed of it. Nice try, chandler, but next time you want to tear down heterosexual marriage by describing its membership as nothing but sexually free-wheeling libertines who are at best ambivalent toward their unions, you’ll get a lot further with your lies if your description of your friends doesn’t sound like a Whitman’s deluxe sampler. The only thing you left out was all of your straight couple friends who are in abusive marriages. And arranged marriages. And celebrity marriages. And mail-order bride marriages…
Hell yes they are. Children are a miracle and a gift from God. Society depends on them. Something extremely important that heterosexuality can provide to society that homosexuality cannot. That makes our relationships lesser. It doesnt make us lesser people, but hell yes it makes our relationships lesser. Tell me, what is it your homosexual relationship can provide to society that is as meaningful as a child???That is a sick thing to say and if you are a gay person I am truly sorry that you are so negative about yourself. Wrong. Its called being honest with yourself. You should try it. I’m sorry youre so self deluded and so insecure about your relationships and what they can and cant do that you have to lie to yourself like this. I assure you, I am very happy and very balanced because I accept the obvious truth that babies come from relations between men and women, not men and men, and am perfectly comfortable with it. You are not, you are deluded, in denial, and living a lie.
I never said that it was. I said I dont know what the effect of gay marriage would be on society because I am not prescient. Neither are you. I assume the overall effect would be positive, but unlike you, I am actually open-minded, and as such can recognize that there could be negative effects as well. Honest, responsible people need to address these issues. Obviously, that group wont include you.
Thats not what I said. I said he was arguing that society doesnt have a right to encourage the nuclear family ideal. And by saying that the institution of marriage is unjust unless it allows homosexual couples, that is indeed the logical conclusion of his argument.
No thank you. I love myself very much. I would never hate myself, I abhor what I see it does to people like you who can’t accept the truth about their sexuality.
If you believe that a sexual orientation that cannot reproduce is equivalent to one that can, you do not accept your sexual orientation. You are in denial about it.
Ok, lets try a little experiment. We lock you and your same sex partner (sorry with an androgenous name like Jody, i dont know if youre a man or a woman) up on a desert island with all the food/water/shelter, etc you need, but no other human beings.
How long will it be before we can come back and congratulate you two on your new baby?
(In related news, there were additional studies released confirming that marijuana use greatly increases the risk of psychosis)
Thanks for your kind words Sean A and Vince P. Its refreshing to see other people “get it” — especially when arguing with close-minded, hysterical victims.
But i have to disagree with part of this comment:
I dont think this argument is dead in the water. In fact I think its precisely the argument that gay-marriage advocates should be making.
That, “yes, we understand marriage isnt a right, but here are the reasons we think society should also encourage homosexuals to enter into committed relationships…”
Other than Massachusetts, whose decision was based on unique elements of their state constitution, all the states Supreme Courts have unanimously agreed that the goal of the marriage institution is up to the people, not the courts, to define. And they are right, and its time gays realized it and began to think about the instituion, it’s function and whether or not they can contribute to it without harming it. And then to convince the people of it.
No one is entiteled to have other people approve of or encourage their behavior. If you want them to do so, you have to convince them that it would be worthwhile for them to do so.
It’s a very difficult point to make to people overcome with hysterical emotion, aka liberals.
Ugh, one of these days I’ll learn to edit my comments before posting them: Mrs. Palmer would be applled! It’s not that I don’t know how to write, it’s that I decide what I am going to write as I am typing it. Sloppy.
Number 19: Got any proof of that claim, that same sex marriages were accepted in some societies as a general rule? It’s damn easy to make that claim but proof tends to be like the Starhawkian claims of wiccan survivals..
AE, you make a very valid point about marriage and children.
Which is why I am in favor of domestic partners or civil unions.
With the break down of the traditional family, there is room for changes. Since we already got the bad changes, instant divorce, serial monogamy, children as either status symbol or left as afterthoughts for society to deal with.
Yesterday Laura Ingraham adopted a little girl from Guatamala. 30 years ago the Right in this country would have had a fit that a single conservative woman in her 40’s would take on motherhood alone.
We are seeing more and more gay couples with children. This too would have been unacceptable 30 years ago.
My sense is that many gays want society’s approval, i.e. governmental sanction of their marriage – before they accept the responsibilities. Meanwhile, many others are simply taking on all obligations of marriage, including children, and making as many personal arrangements as possible to protect such unions.
These are the people who will bring about change in the public’s mind, The more average Americans are exposed to such people, the more they will come to accept this arrangement in society. Will this lead to actual ‘gay marriage’? Maybe, maybe not, but if it leads to more DP laws, that too is quite an accomplishment.
Meanwhile, Chandler, I am clearly not among your friends, I and many of my friends have been married for over 25 years – in that old fashioned way – with love and respect and mutual obligations. In all my adult years it is rare for me to hear about what goes on in my friends bedrooms. It’s not something we talk about, and when a couple falters and splits, there is usually a sense of surprise. Trying to paint a picture that all heterosexual marriage these days is a farce won’t help your cause of advancing gay marriage.
AE, I missed the biology class where eggs only choose to be fertilized by sperm from heterosexual, married men. Was that also the day they taught that sperm refused to inseminate the egg of a lesbian woman?
Perhaps I was high that day.
Jody,
Heterosexuality: noun. Sexuality directed toward someone of the opposite sex.
Heterosexuality and heterosexual are two different words. Yes, heterosexuality and only heterosexuality is where children come from, exactly as I said. Period. You apparently did miss the biology lesson where they taught that only men have sperm and only women have eggs.
I totally agree. And that’s really what marriage is, society’s approval and encouragement of the nuclear family. The problem is that activists are trying to FORCE society to esteem non-nuclear families just as much as it does the nuclear family. Which of course they have no right to do.
But I really am not sure whether civil unions would be better for society than gay marriage. You have to keep in mind that civil unions would also have to be available to everyone, and then you have straights choosing to get civil unions rather then getting married. Are civil unions easier to get out of than marriage? what is the effect on society? I am inclined to think its better to allow gays to get married, but, as Ive said, I really don’t know.
Way to take a quote out of context, my friendly soup spoon [AE].
As you appear to have quite the butterfingers with the editing scissors, here’s the full quote he made again:
But, back to you my dear withywindle, I don’t need the government’s acceptance. It has none to grant because that’s not the business it’s in. I just need the same rights straight couples get, so I can protect my family someday.
I have just about had it with your reduction of marriage to makin’ babies, too, my luminiferous pipkin. It almost pains me to say it one more time, but here goes:
Let’s put two infertile people, one male, one female, on and island, and see how long it is before they come back with a baby.
Then you make an argument that can be summed up as, “It’s different, because they’re straight.”
And I reply, “But explain what’s different besides that. Especially when all the same methods that are popular for infertile couples to have children are used for gay people to do the same.”
And then, you, following your standard pattern, will likely accuse me of not listening to you.
There! Wasn’t that much easier than actually going through the actual work of posting?
Well, until next time, my old silver tureen, pardon the silly names. They’re really the only novelty I get out of this. Delightfully quirky, I think. Though, then again, they could just be a symptom of the hysteria that you keep diagnosing in me and everyone else who disagrees with you. Oh my! I hope that’s not it!
(Also, one could make a bit of a game out of them. All of them except one fit into a category of sorts. Must do something to freshen this most exceedingly repetitive back and forth up, mustn’t we? Golly…perhaps I’m deranged as well as hysterical. OH! And how could I forget! “Closed-minded”, too!)
AE,
I missed the class where only heterosexuals make eggs and sperm and the other one where only the eggs and sperm of heterosexuals can combine to make babies.
Is it just one organ spot checks the sexual orientation of the originator of the genetic material or a group of them? Do they use a true / false questionnaire, Google or a more invasive procedure?
Please explain, for as you’ve suggested, I was high and / or psychotic that day.
PSUdain,
You haven’t got the faintest clue what a right is.
You know who says so? The Supreme Courts of WA, OR, CA, HA, OH, WI, CO, NJ, etc, etc, etc…
The cases are over. They are decided. They have locked the doors, turned off the lights, gone home, and the world has moved on, and you are still outside banging on the doors screaming, “BUT INFERTILE COUPLES CAN MARRY!!!!”
There is no argument about it. I am right and you are wrong. Period. The law says so. the constitution says so. The courts say so. They are not going to re-hear the cases. The federal courts are not going to take up a state matter. It’s over.
I’ve explained how the constitutionality works to you til I am blue in the face. But you don’t want to hear it. You just stick your fingers in your ears and keep shrieking the same asinine arguments.
The fact is, you don’t WANT to understand why you are wrong, and that makes you not only ignorant, but willfully so.
I’m sorry you think your reasoning is logical. It isn’t. I’m sorry you think you’re right. You aren’t. I’m sorry you think you have a good point. You don’t. The fact that you are wrong is now the law of the land. Whether you choose to accept it or not is irrelevant.
I’m not going to continue arguing with a shrill, ignorant, hysterical, asinine brick wall.
You lost. It would behoove you to figure out why.
Telling a little kid that he’s got no father — only an extra “mom” — simply because his Mother doesn’t particularly like boys, is a cruel and unusual form of gender bias, and a sick thing to do to a kid.
Fatherlessness is always tragic. Orientation is hardly an excuse.
Here’s an interesting point about infertility and marriage. In Jewish law, which some of us think is about 4000 years old – infertility is a reason for divorce.
Unlike Catholicism, divorce is available in Jewish law. It is highly discouraged, and one cannot get one on a whim. But if a woman is infertile for 10 years, (in those days, since the woman bore the children, infertility was only her fault) the man could divorce her for that reason alone, so he could remarry and have children. And this at a time when polygamy existed, though as Dan stated, was probably only available to the upper classes.
Another point, laws are made for society at large, not for every small little sub group. Certain subgroups who will only benefit and not contribute – such as infertile couples, older couples beyond the age of conception. Or even a mentally disabled couple who will be discouraged from having children – will be allowed to marry.
That doesn’t change the basic tenet that marriage is about producing nuclear families. For every rule there are exceptions.
Occasionally WC Fields is the only source:
From the left side of the mouth comes: “I don’t need the government’s acceptance.” From the right side of the mouth comes: “I just need the same rights….” That is to say, just have the guvmint enforce the rights I want and buzz off on all other issues that I’m not into.
What a concept! Government as first responder to personal whim and strict wallflower when so directed.
I will call Fort Knox in the morning for my personal delivery.
Motherlessness is also always tragic, no exceptions.
Just because her Father cannot love women is no reason that his daughter should have to give up her Mother in exchange for a redundant “dad”.
That would be cruel and unusual.
“If you believe that a sexual orientation that cannot reproduce is equivalent to one that can, you do not accept your sexual orientation.”
I thought you were taking about relationships AE? This statement clearly means that we as LGBT people are less than heterosexuals. Producing children is not the only act that defines a person’s or even a relationship’s value. And before you say “that’s not what I said”, read what you said, it is. It’s a good thing that all the childless people in the world now and who have existed in history didn’t/don’t accept the ridiculous concept that you put forth here how bleak life would be. Millions of people support and enhance life without ever giving birth or providing sperm. There are and have been billions of people without whom history would have been different, where the lives of others would have been miserable and/or shortened. Did not God demand the the fertility shrines be torn down and destroyed? Seems you want to build them again, dangerous idea.
I see multiple examples of you putting down those who don’t agree with you. You seem to have mistaken arrogance with insight.
Dave, all things being equal (that is, barring some disability) then any man+woman combination has the CAPACITY for reproduction that no same-sex couple can ever have, disability or not.
Therefore, all things being equal, same-sex couples can never be considered “equal” to any opposite sex couple.
Is an apple+orange equal to two apples or two oranges? How could it ever be?
And, Dave, why does it concern you so much that a couple that is fundamentally different from you in biology and its potential effect on society receives different treatment?
John said: “prohibitions against same-sex marriage”
The prohibitions, such as they are, stand not against the choice to form a one-sexed arrangement (gay or otherwise) but against the merger of nonmarriage and marriage.
The gay relationship type is not a subset of marriage. But that’s because it lacks the other sex, not because of sexual attractions or identity.
The nature of the social institution is unchanging: it is 1) integration of the sexes, 2) contingency for Responsible Procreation, and 3) these combined into a coherent whole.
The man-woman criterion is a legal requirement that stands for sex integration; the marriage presumption of paternity stands for responsible procreation; and marriage, like all foundational social institution, is a coherent set of principles and practices and, yes, ideals. It is not a dismantled bunch of bits and pieces.
John said: “You allow a glaring exception in the case of infertile hetero couples but deny the same for childless homo couples as well as homo couples that do have children.”
That is only an apparent, not an actual, exception. Rather it is more of an exemption based on disability. But if you are trying to claim that homosexuality is a disability, then, that’s a different conversation.
Infertility is both-sexed, like fertility is both-sexed. The one-sexed alternative is not infertile since it categorically can not be fertile. The lack of the other sex is not infertilty. Sure, we mght sometimes use shorthand when we say that an individual is fertile or is infertile, but that means fertile, or infertile, with the other sex.
Fertility is variable. That’s the way it is. The human being is born non-fertile, matures and becomes fertile, and eventually experiences subfertility and infertility. Some men remain fertile long into old-age. Women generally reach menopause in their late thirties or early forties. Most couples are fertile but a significant minority (maybe 10%) of married couples do experience fertility problems. And, infertility, like fertility, is variable. Most of these couples resolve their problems through changes in behavior. Of infertile couples, only a very small percentage actually use the more intrusive medical interventions. And of those 90% do NOT use the gametes of third parties — usually the mother was impregnated with her husband’s sperm. So there is a significant question of proportionality and also a matter of seemingly infinite variability on the question of infertility/fertility.
On the other hand, the one-sexed arrangement is never fertile (without the other sex). That is a constant that does not change with behavior and even with medical interventions. A lone individual is no more fertile (without the other sex) than a couple — or a parade — of people of the same sex.
It is unreasonable to demand that society merge the sex-segregative arrangement with the union of husband and wife. It is unreasonable to demand that all marriages be treated as if they lacked the other sex. SSM argumentation makes these demands and undermines the marriage presumption of paternity — which cannot apply to an all-male or an all-female arrangement. Thus the SSM campaign is a direct attack on the nature of marriage — sex integration, responsible procreation, and the coherent whole that makes marriage a foundational social institution.
Marriage is not created nor is it owned by the government. It pre-exists governmental authority. That authority is derived from civil society — and it is a very bad idea to promote the take over of civil society by government.
And a point about Goodridge: it was not decided on the basis of a claim of unjust discrimination based on sexual orientation — nor based on sex classification. The court failed to produce a majority in favor of either claim. Instead, it went 6-1 against sex-based discrimination and 7-0 against sexual orientation discrimination.
The Goodridge plurality agreed only on its predrawn conclusion that SSM is a subset of marriage and must be imposed on society. And yet it stands as the prime example of how the SSM campaign elides the actual disagreement on the nature of marriage.
You may be your sexual orientation, I am not. Most people are not.
You should probably give up on the whole reasoning thing — you’re not very good at it. For that matter you should probably give up the whole English language. “Sexual orientation” is not synonymous with “people”.
My edifying tonic, just as I predicted, you proceeded to call me some more names, you called my ability to think into question, you called my integrity into question. Ad hominem much? Just because someone vociferously disagrees with you, they’re automatically, “Shrill, ignorant, hysterical, [and] asinine”? Really, come on, now. I mean, seriously…
But most importantly, again, you ignored my request for an answer as to what the difference is besides the gender of the partners. I’m not asking you to regurgitate [discriminatory] case law. I’m not asking you to speak to laws and/or traditions. I am asking you to answer, in your own sight, beliefs, and words, what is the difference is between the two child-producing couples that I have posited, except that one is straight and one isn’t.
Let me rephrase it one more time, using an illustration:
So, now, I want you to try answering the following (which should provide some sort of answer to my overriding question):
Please to not bring the law into answering 3 and 4. I’m not interested in you telling me what the law says. I can read the law and I know the laws. I want you to explain this to me on a personal level.
Please do not continue to give me the same tired argument about incentivizing child production. It’s pretty clear that we don’t need to incentivize that. It’s pretty easy, and I understand that it can be pretty pleasurable and fun for straight couples to engage in child-producing activities. There are plenty of children, numbers-wise. We have kids coming out our ears in this country. We need more stable homes for them. What is/should be actually “incentivized” (if this is indeed an incentive system, as you claim – – I don’t cede the point for anything but argument’s sake) is the actual provision of a stable home for a child, not having the child in the first place. That being said:
Now, my polymorphous kazoo, please actually answer my questions. I even numbered them to make it as hard as possible to miss** them this time.
**And by “miss”, I mean “ignore”.
As for this:
That’s just fatuous. You’re playing with words, and badly at that. Of course they’re not synonymous if he used one as a modifier (we call that an adjective, normally).
I’m going to assume that what you mean is that orientation does not define a person’s whole. However, race does not solely define people either, but it’s common to use that as a group identifier. Or a person’s sex; that’s a common one, too. Like, “Oh, look at those guys over there.” Does that mean the whole person is bound up in just their sex? Of course not! Get over yourself and your ridiculous claims that LGBT people identify ourselves solely based on orientation.
That said, it certainly is a huge part of who we are. I mean, think of the sort of prototypical “life goals”: Find love, make a family, raise kids, be successful. The first two of those are completely bound up with orientation matters, and the third springs from the first two. The last, for many, is almost entirely derivative from the first three.
So, don’t go saying that straight people don’t self-identify just as much based on orientation. It’s just so well-accepted and so common that nobody even blinks anymore. My orientation wouldn’t have to be such an issue if there weren’t crazy straight people running around trying to making it one any time it comes up naturally in conversation. (Or, you know trying to get reelected based on it…)
In the marriage tradition, an infertile couple is regarded as incomplete. When elderly people marry, they are feted for the joy of their union, but it is clearly understood that they are incapable of multiplying. When couples of child-bearing age fail to reproduce, there is a traditional concern for their status. “Do you have any children?” is a common question to ask of child-bearing age couples. It is also asked of us elderly people.
In logic, there is a fallacy of reasoning that is called “accident.” To cite an infertile heterosexual married couple as an example for justifying homosexual marriage is to commit the fallacy of accident.
To my knowledge, no society as set out to reward infertile individuals who bond and marry. That is counter productive to the imperatives of continuing the society.
I am confused about the “Jim and Pat” scenario. If Pat is a female, then her mother instincts will rise to the fore. If Pat is a male, then he will have to guess at what a real woman’s instincts would be. The child, being patterned by two adults will simply have to look around at the greater world to figure out where and how he fits. If Pat is a female and the child is gay, then he has a challenge. I am not certain I know what the outcome is if Pat is a male and the child is not gay.
But, I suppose the Swedes and the Dutch have it all studied out.
That said, it certainly is a huge part of who we are. I mean, think of the sort of prototypical “life goalsâ€: Find love, make a family, raise kids, be successful.
Absolutely none of which require marriage.
The problem here is what you betrayed in your last statement; you do not believe anyone who is not married, remains single their entire life, and doesn’t raise kids can be successful.
It is interesting how gays and lesbians who are obsessed with marriage are also obsessed with other EXTERNAL indicators, such as whether or not one has children, whether or not one is partnered, and so forth. These are all things that, while they ostensibly show one thing, are no guarantee that one’s behavior is worthwhile; for instance, Bill Clinton is married and has a child, but is a liar and serial philanderer.
For PSUdain and other liberal gays, the lack of marriage is a convenient excuse for refusing to confront their own behavior. They believe that society’s lack of respect for them is due to the absence of this external indicator rather than their behavior, just as the jerk teenager who doesn’t have any friends insists that he would if he had a cooler car.
Again, NDT, my assertive friend, you try to put words in my mouth. What I said was:
Notice that qualifier: “FOR MANY”. Not “for all”. And I certainly didn’t make any statement that a person can’t be successful without them, if he is happy and feels that he has succeeded. So, again, while I agree with your analysis of your hallucination, I’m afraid it’s still a hallucination, as usual when you try to tell me what I think.
You are incredibly shallow if you think we want these things as “status symbols”. Those of us who want these things want them because we have a drive to raise children, just like many straight people. (NOT ALL, I must add, or you’ll try to forcibly interpret my “many” as something that means more that it does.) We want these things for exactly the same reason that so many straight people do. Why is it just accepted as genuine when straights do it, but it becomes some desperate calculation when gay people do it. WE’RE NOT ANY DIFFERENT FROM YOU. STOP ACTING AS IF WE’RE SOME ALIEN SPECIES TRYING TO MAKE A SUPERFICIAL ATTEMPT AT SOME SORT OF STATUS. (The same applies to the following statement about “external indicators, too.)
Also, way to generalize:
You know, it takes some chutzpah (or just an incredible putz, I suppose) to reduce a whole sector of the populace to simple one-dimensional stereotype. Sounds like something that “jerk” you mentioned might do. Been looking to buy a cool car lately?
I’d like to ask what behavior exactly do you refer to? My total lack of promiscuity (not that it’s any of your business, but you bring it up so much as an immutable gay characteristic)? My church involvement (I serve on council and Worship committee, besides the normal involvement)? My involvement in charitible causes (often through my church)? My love of broadway? My love of Frank Sinatra music? My trombone playing behavior? My past political involvement in the Republican party before it started playing with divisive politics and turned on Barry Goldwater’s legacy? My old-style conservative ideas? (A la John Stuart Mill and Barry Goldwater. I’m not a liberal in any sense but the classical one, despite your broad brush-strokes (or perhaps “liberal” just means “one who does not agree with NDT all the time” these days).) Is it my This American Life-listening behavior? Maybe my Battlestar Galactica-watching behavior? Or would it be my computer engineering studying-behavior? I hope it’s not my love of reading (especially C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, and Sherlock Holmes stories) that makes them not accept me! I really hope it’s not the behavior where I cry whenever the hymn “Children of the Heavenly Father” is sung in church. There was nothing I could do about that one, even before we sang it at my grandpa’s funeral. I could go on and on.
Please, stop me if it’s one of these that society does not respect.
Maybe the reason you always accuse me of reducing myself to one aspect is that it’s what you do to me when you speak to me. You ignore the existence of all those other facets of who I am (and more beyond them) and reduce me to one flat stereotype that fits your perceptive and then talk to that stereotyped figure instead of me.
Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, there are bigoted people left in society who just can’t deal with the fact that one man can love another man in a real and sincere way, and that’s why there are parts of society that won’t accept me?
Because gender amounts to a whole hell of a lot more than a person’s name. Gender MATTERS.
Holy hell, are you really this farking stupid? (No need to answer that)
I never said we had to incentivize child production, oh ye of abysmal reading comprehension, I said society wants to ensure that as many children as possible are born INTO a committed relationship between their biological mother and their biological father.
This is the ideal. An ideal you don’t fit into until such time as you are willing to marry your child’s mother. It doesn’t mean society is outlawing other family arrangements, it doesn’t even mean they aren’t supportive of them — obviously since you are allowed to adopt, they are. What it means, for the 500th time, is that it is the ideal scenario, and society wants to see as many kids raised in the ideal scenario as possible
That is your opinion. An opinion that has been resoundly defeated by the rest of the electorate. Please get this through your thick skull — YOU don’t get to decide what behaviors the people esteem. The people do. And they have said, through their legislatures, that they want the purpose of marriage to be to encourage the nuclear family.
Society has every right to encourage meaningful ideals. Your asinine point of view is that it doesn’t and we should allow couples that, by definition, contradict the ideal to be part of an institution thats purpose is to encourage that ideal.
The fact that you don’t think it is a “fair” or worthwhile goal to encourage children to be born into and raised under a union between their biological parents, just goes to show how incredibly selfish and self centered you really are.
As I said, you lost, it would behoove you to figure out why. And NO, you obviously DON’T understand the law. If you did, you wouldn’t keep up with your incessant and nearly psychotic repetition of the same arguments over and over and over and over. Arguments that have been discredited and rejected with eloquent explanation in the very court decisions themselves, not to mention the 500 times I have explained them to you. (make that 501)
WILLFUL ignorance of a deranged magnitude.
Chairm: If you’d like to discuss this please feel free to email me. I don’t have a problem discussing issues with people who disagree with me, but I don’t care for the diatribes of some here about this from either end of the spectrum.
And love matters a whole lot more than gender or biological relationships.
Actually, I can’t adopt in Florida. And in all those states where I can adopt, many of them (28+) don’t allow joint adoption, so if the child were to become ill, or I were to die, there wouldn’t be a legal claim of custody by my partner in many cases. But just keep telling yourself that it’s fair and supportive.
======================================================================
Also, add psychotic and deranged to the list. Now you’ve called me, ““Shrill, ignorant, hysterical, asinine”, “deranged”, and “psychotic”. And besides these ad hominems, you’ve still failed to answer my questions. Sweet!
And here’s bandwagon.
Ad hominem, again:
Appeal to authority:
======================================================================
I’m not talking about laws or court decisions. I’m talking about right and wrong. Denying a gay family the same protections as a straight one is flat wrong. Love is way more important than blood in a family.
Proof that you are concerned only with what YOU want, not what is best for society or best for children.
Marriage encourages all of the above. Love FROM biological parents. Yes, love is important. Thats why society allows loving people to adopt children. But adoption isn’t ideal. Being raised by biological parents who love you is always preferable to being raised by adoptive parents who love you.
But you want to negate the importance of children being raised by their biological parents and tear down the institution built to encourage that ideal for your own selfish ends.
I am glad to hear it! You have demonstrated that you are far too selfish at the expense of children’s best interests to ever be allowed to adopt.
However, if other people are being prevented from adopting because they are single I am sad to hear it. I imagine there are a great many children who go unadopted because there simply aren’t enough two-parent households for them all. But for the 500th time, this is adoption law, not marriage law. They are two very different things. We are not talking about adoption law in here. We are talking about marriage law.
Wrong. We are now on post #61. Your questions have all been answered almost that many times. And because you are unwilling to listen, you have also been referred to the court decisions where your questions have been answered and rejected, with very eloquent and definitive reasoning. But you refuse to listen to reason and logic, and insist on asking the same questions over and over despite the fact that they have been answered countless times.
That makes you, by definition, hysterical, unreasonable, asinine, willfully ignorant, and very likely deranged and psychotic. They are not ad hominem attacks if they are demonstrably true.
No, not because they’re single. Because they’re gay. Singles can adopt.
Cute. Really. So you’re able to give clinical diagnosis. Maybe it’s just that we fundamentally disagree?
Actually, I thought we were talking about “marriage” as an ideal, not a “law” at all. So I didn’t really want to hear about court cases, as 1) Courts can be wrong 2) Courts are not moral arbiters 3) Government is not a moral arbiter. I sincerely and honestly believe (and I am backed up by the facts, studies, and anecdotes from people I know) that gay families are just as good for children as straight ones. For that reason, I think that they should be treated the same by other people. My arguments, when framed in legalisms are quite different.
I also think that that’s a complete load. I don’t think there’s an appreciable difference, and nor do my friends who were raised by adoptive parents. We certainly don’t see adopted kids underperforming in life compared to those raised by bio-parents. I honestly don’t see what in the relationship so hinges upon the biology; I mean honestly some biological parents who give children up for adoption do it out of love. Many abusive bio-parents claim to “love” their children. And besides that, we treat adoptive parents just like bio-parents, so we could go back to that whole thing. I think one of your fundamental premises is faulty, so clearly we have a deeply rooted disagreement.
And you, sir, seem to be a complete and total asshole to even consider making a statement like that, without ever meeting or interacting with me outside an antagonistic setting online, let alone personally at all. Until this point I have not made any personal attacks on you here (or that was not my intent, at least, even if language was perceived as hostile). And yet every last one of your posts has been absolutely laden with them. What the hell is the bug up your butt for? Just because somebody doesn’t agree with you doesn’t make him an idiot automatically. That’s the true basis of a free society, the ability to disagree civilly. You seem to be incapable of such.
Now perhaps we come from two perspectives so radically different that you can’t address my points and questions in the way I feel they should be. And vice versa. I mean clearly we have a deeply-set disagreement when it’s not just the application of premises but the actual premises that we disagree one. But the fact that we don’t see eye-to-eye does not make you absolutely provably right, and besides that, however vociferously we may disagree, there is no need to lash out at me with these nasty pejoratives that you use.
Ironically, but not surprisingly, that is one of the major reasons conservatives use for wanting to get rid of welfare.
I guess they want their cake and to eat it too.
I’ve read this site on and off for quite a while and I have always wondered if the conservative “gays” here aren’t just sockpuppets for some anti gay group.