Gay Patriot Header Image

Gay Groups Ignore Monogamy when Promoting Marriage

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:20 pm - June 20, 2008.
Filed under: Gay Marriage,Gay PC Silliness,Gay Politics

Shortly after posting my piece, Will Gay Marriage Help Tame Men’s “Piggishness”?, I considered contacting the leading national gay organizations, California groups and other individuals at the forefront of the gay marriage debate to ask them how they felt Eric Erbelding’s comments in the New York Times might impact the movement for gay marriage, particularly the campaign to defeat the proposition on the Golden State ballot this fall.

Instead, I decided to check the websites of the various organizations and bloggers to see if in favoring extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, they recognized that marriage is based on the premise of monogamy. I also wonder if they sought to promote that notion in public statements on marriage.

To that end, I did a number of searches on the websites of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Freedom to Marry, Equality California (EQ CA), the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center and Andrew Sullivan’s blog. (I could not find a search feature on Log Cabin’s website nor on those of the pro-gay marriage Equality for All and LetCaliforniaRing sites.)

I did word searches (without quotation marks) for the following: “marriage monogamy,” “marriage monogamous,” “marriage fidelity” and “marriage adultery.” Researching this post took a lot longer than I had anticipated.

And while I found more references than I had anticipated when I did the “marriage monogamous” search, most other searches came up short. On the site of Freedom to Marry, the one national group devoted primarily to promoting gay marriage, my searches yielded almost nothing, with no hits on marriage monogamy and only six for marriage monogamous.

None of those six hits indicated the ostensibly pro-marriage group supported monogamous gay unions. The closest they got was a footnote in the linked report, Black Same-Sex Households in the United States, observing that “Many gay, bisexual and straight people are monogamous.

Most of the references I found were to other faiths’ definition of marriage and the experiences of individual couples. Nowhere did I find an organization’s representative or blogger saying that he or she believed monogamy to be an essential feature of marriage.

Yet I did find this hopeful note in a transcript of HRC’s morning news webcast “Equally Speaking:”

A new study on the hopes and aspirations of GLBT young people has found that most want to spend their adult life in a long-term relationship raising children. More than 90 percent of young lesbians and more than 80 percent of gay males report that they expect to be partnered in a monogamous relationship after age 30. The study, conducted by the Rockway Institute, is believed to be the first major study of its kind.

An overwhelming majority of young gay men and lesbians expect to be in monogamous unions? This is big news. Advocates of gay marriage should make much of it if they are serious about promoting gay marriage.

If these advocates wish to deprive opponents of gay marriage of the gift the New York Times gave them when they featured a man in an open relationship in its recent article on gay marriage, they need to stand up and say that those who reject monogamy do not speak up for the vast majority of gay men and lesbians who want the state to recognize their monogamous unions.

So far they haven’t done that.

Share

144 Comments

  1. “monogamous relationship after age 30″ ?? If a person does not think in monogamous terms before the age of 30, it is very doubtful that they will become mongamous after age 30.

    As someone who has always been mongamous, I hope that attitude with change.

    Comment by Dan — June 20, 2008 @ 6:03 pm - June 20, 2008

  2. I had a real aha moment when I read this:

    An overwhelming majority of young gay men and lesbians expect to be in monogamous unions? This is big news. Advocates of gay marriage should make much of it if they are serious about promoting gay marriage.

    One phrase we have heard too much of lately is: ‘for the children’. Of course, despite it’s overuse – it holds true.

    But not for the gay groups, they are stuck in their own narcissistic world, what rights and privileges can I get for me!
    Sure there is talk about how being legally married makes it easier on gay couples with children. Here’s the rub, the whole issue of monogamy is not only about the two partners in the marriage. It’s a very strong primal lesson in trust for the children. Children know what goes on behind closed doors. Often they know infidelity is going on before the injured party knows.

    We have a generation of young gay men and women, who want what most people their age want – a loving monogamous relationship. The gay groups don’t see it as their responsibility to these people to curtail their own selfish desires. Seems to me that this time, the side that truly believes ‘it’s for the children’ will win, and that is not the pro gay marriage crowd.

    Comment by Leah — June 20, 2008 @ 6:05 pm - June 20, 2008

  3. I find it interesting that this whole monogamy issue has come up as a way to attack gay marriage has appeared in the last few weeks.

    Interestingly enough, the majority of male couples I know (mostly together 12 years and longer) are not 100% physically monogamous. In all of these cases, both partners are aware that the other “plays around” some times and in some cases both of them are playing around with a 3rd person or maybe even more sometimes. The thing is, these guys are confident enough with themselves and their partners to know that their physical needs are not the same as their emotional and relationship needs. At the end of the day, they know who they’re going home with / going home to and the folks they play with are well aware of it to. It seems to me that most relationships (gay, heterosexual, whatever) get into trouble when people can’t be up-front and honest about their wants and needs with each other. It ends up with lying, cheating, control, etc, etc.

    In the end….marriage is not defined by society; it’s defined by the people who decide to commit it together. I wonder about this whole issue to “defend marriage”. If defending marriage is so important, then why don’t we outlaw divorce? So far there’s been no call for state/federal amendments to do that. Or how about actually making it a crime again to cheat on one’s spouse? What’s the divorce rate in this country now, something like over 50% within the first 5 years? Or why don’t our citizens who call for marriage to be defended reject politicians who’ve been divorced? (well, then again, that would include people like Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, John McCain)

    Comment by Kevin — June 20, 2008 @ 8:18 pm - June 20, 2008

  4. Um, Kevin, if you bothered to read my posts you’d know I’ve been talking about monogamy for as long as I’ve been blogging, almost four years now.

    If your friends play around, then that’s their choice. They may well have very good relationships, but they don’t have marriages. And as I said in my previous post nor do “swinging” heterosexual couples.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 20, 2008 @ 8:25 pm - June 20, 2008

  5. i believe in monogamy for myself but who am i to police others? i think one can be in a marriage with someone they love share benefits and if they choose to be open sexually that is their business.

    Comment by queerunity — June 20, 2008 @ 8:41 pm - June 20, 2008

  6. Well don’t demand society to regard your open relationships to be on par to their families. Then no one will “judge” you.

    Comment by Vince P — June 20, 2008 @ 8:48 pm - June 20, 2008

  7. Well said, Vince.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 20, 2008 @ 9:14 pm - June 20, 2008

  8. Kevin is correct that there are couples (gay and straight) that have “open” relationships. But those are not marriages (IMHO, marriage != relationship).

    I’ve lived a sheltered existence but I find it hard to believe that anyone who truly loves another (real love, not lust) isn’t a wee bit uneasy when their beloved is out “playing around”.

    If that’s how people want to live, there’s not much we can do in a free country to stop them.

    But marriage is a special arrangement where people put the needs of their marriage ahead of their own wants and desires (I wish I could better express this thought).

    Nevertheless, it’s not reasonable to believe that gays will switch to “straight” mores instantly – just because of a court ruling.

    People like Maggie Gallagher need to realize that marriage is (or used to be) a model for life: married people are expected to live within certain limits. Straights have been expected to conform to married norms for generations (and they’ve never been all that great at it). It’s new ground for gays.

    Comment by Robert — June 20, 2008 @ 9:21 pm - June 20, 2008

  9. If defending marriage is so important, then why don’t we outlaw divorce?

    Well God forbid actually taking responsibility for your (maybe not you sepcifically) own actions. Always point the finger at somebody else and use that as an excuse to fuck around. Just because somebody does it, that doesn’t make it right. Nor does it make them wrong for stating that divorce is wrong. It doesn’t change anything.

    If you’re going to be that irresponsible, saying “why should I be monogamous when nobody else is?”, perhaps you’ve got no business getting married or having a relationship at all, for that matter. Why bother getting married if you’re just gonna fuck around?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 20, 2008 @ 11:54 pm - June 20, 2008

  10. Okay, I’ve been with my partner for 15 years and we’ve always been 100% monogamous!

    Yes, there is definately a problem with most gay relationships. We are always saddened when we hear that a couple we meet is having an open relationship.

    I do wish that there was a monogamy/ no divorce/remarriage (i.e. serial monogamy)/ no adultry component to the marriage law. However, if that was the case, most heterosexual relationships in my extended family would have failed that test at my time or another. How about your families? Do you know all the family secrets?

    My father cheated on my mom – they still had a marriage though, not a good one I admit, but the marriage did provide a framework, a structure.

    Comment by Dan — June 21, 2008 @ 12:57 am - June 21, 2008

  11. Kevin just confirms, gays have no intention whatsoever of honoring the institution. They have no interest in conforming to societal expectations about marriage, they expect society and marriage to adjust to them. Another great reason to not support gay marriage.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 21, 2008 @ 2:10 am - June 21, 2008

  12. And I still remember a column I read on gay.com a year or so ago. it said roughly, “lets face it. monogamy isn’t realistic for most gays. open marriages are here to stay” or something very close to that.

    I don’t care if people are monogamous or not, until the get married or until they are demanding the right to marry. Its part and parcel of the institution.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 21, 2008 @ 2:30 am - June 21, 2008

  13. #11: ” Kevin just confirms, gays have no intention whatsoever of honoring the institution. They have no interest in conforming to societal expectations about marriage, they expect society and marriage to adjust to them.”

    Oh, it’s that bad and worse, AE. Even a society that falls all over itself accommodating these crybabies that make up less than 5% of the population (at the outside) will never be allowed to simply “conform” to gay culture. The grievances will never cease as long as there is even one Christian left in the world that refuses to march in the parade. No, gays are about celebration and affirmative acceptance—which is why it is not enough for the rest of the country to simply “tolerate” (ignore) those charming, committed gay couples who have simply decided that weekly 30-man gangbangs in their home is “what works” in their “marriage.” I’m sorry, but they’re going to have to see some documentation to substantiate that you are not judging them because it’s “intolerant” and “hateful” and they simply won’t stand for it.

    So, in order to chip away at the “hatred” and “intolerance,” in addition to helping the world lower its standards and further erase our ability to distinguish between healthy behavior and destructive behavior, the practitioners of open relationships send easily-duped simpletons like Kevin out into the world to promote acceptance of the laughable rationalizations they use to excuse their crippling insecurities and inability to make decisions independent of sexual impulse. To see what I mean, read Kevin’s quote from
    # 3:

    ”The thing is, these guys are confident enough with themselves and their partners to know that their physical needs are not the same as their emotional and relationship needs.”

    Yeah, that’s right. All that bullshit propaganda–People in open relationships are “confident” and “have the courage to be honest,” and are “respectful” of their partner’s “needs” outside the relationship. They’re becoming more “complete people” by “embracing their desires without fear or shame.” Yes, that’s right—not only should these men not be “judged,” they’re better than the rest of us, more evolved and “in touch” with who they are. They are shining examples of pragmatic heroism—they don’t think their partner is worth making sacrifices for and they KNOW they aren’t worth it—but at least they are brave enough to be honest about it.

    And the rest of us…well…we are just missing out on all that wonderfully fulfilling stuff that really makes a relationship tick. It’s like those commercials for prescriptions to prevent herpes “outbreaks”—sure, they’ve got herpes, but people with herpes do really cool things like hang-glide and paddle kyacks to Catalina. Herpes looks really fun! I’ve always wanted to ride a horse on the beach! I wish I had herpes!

    And as with all bad behavior that liberals want to engage in without feeling guilty or condemned, it has a booby-trap for us “haters” built right in because naturally, if you disapprove of the behavior, you must not be “confident” in your self or your partner. Obviously, if you do anything less than open your home to your friends and the junkies they picked up to host an orgy, well, obviously you’re afraid of your sexuality, or you have “trust issues” with your partner. The only thing these people are truly “confident” about is their ability to have sex with a whole lot of people they don’t give a damn about and won’t remember two days later, a quality they share with a broad spectrum of the very best people, including crack whores.

    When I read some of Kevin’s typically retarded statements to my partner, I have to admit we spent a lot of time laughing at him and his pathetic ideas. I think I said, “Oh Shane, I just don’t know what to do! I mean, I WANT to go to a bathhouse tonight and have sex with lots and lots (AND LOTS) of people right now, that would be really awesome (especially if it’s strictly bareback), but I just don’t feel CONFIDENT enough in our relationship at the moment. Know what I mean?” And he said, “Yes! I do know what you mean! Just the other day I thought,…you know what would be fun? Heading over to the park and sucking off 6 or 7 guys in a row. That sounds really good right now, and I do feel CONFIDENT enough in our relationship to do it, but at the same time I’m not sure that I’m quite to the point where I can be HONEST ENOUGH to admit to MYSELF that my monogamous relationship with you satisfies my emotional needs, but not my physical need to let 6 or 7 random strangers blow their wads in my mouth. Does that sound needy and co-dependent?”

    Comment by Sean A — June 21, 2008 @ 3:59 am - June 21, 2008

  14. Kevin just confirms, gays have no intention whatsoever of honoring the institution.

    Because Kevin is clearly the one and only voice that speaks for all THE GAYS. (Should I put fear quotes around that for you, too? I did fear caps and fear italics.)

    I would say something about allowing and accounting for individuation in all groups, something about how there isn’t a Borg-like entity called GAYS and about how Kevin can speak only for himself until THE GAYS appoint him official ambassador to THE STRIAGHTS. I would say that, but it’s done no good any other time.

    So instead, let’s play the your game, just with your words this time:

    I don’t care if people are monogamous or not, until the [sic] get married or until they are demanding the right to marry. Its part and parcel of the institution.

    Hmmm…let me think… GOT IT!

    AE just confirms it; straights want the government to have the power to monitor monogamy and sexual relations.

    Ridiculous statement, isn’t it?

    Trust me, it’s just as ridiculous when you do it.

    Comment by PSUdain — June 21, 2008 @ 4:32 am - June 21, 2008

  15. All this talk of monogamy and what constitutes a “real” marriage raises all kinds of questions for me, both practical and moral. Now, right off the bat, I’d like to note again, contrary to what the tired voices keep on squawking, there are plenty of gay people who want and expect monogamy in their relationships. (The squawking, I might add, occurs without regard to that 80% statistic—which I’d wager is at least as good as the one for the straight population.)

    So here are the questions that come to mind. I’m not trying to be antagonistic, but I’m think it’s very easy to just say, “I think that monogamy is a necessary condition for marriage and monogamous couples are not married.” It’s harder when it gets “messy”.

    –What about couples where one person cheats just once? They’re not monogamous anymore, but can we still call them married, if the other partner is faithful? What if they work through it and it doesn’t happen again? I’d think we could call them married. What if it does happen again, but the faithful partner and the unfaithful work through it again? What if it’s an affair, but the affair is ended and they work through it? Shouldn’t marriage be stronger than a mistake? And even if it’s deliberate on the unfaithful ones part, does the faithful partner get any say in the matter?

    –What if both couples cheat? What if they work through it and it doesn’t happen again?

    –What if they both have an affair, but realize it’s not right and end it? If they work through that, who are you to say they’re not “married”?

    –Who gets to define marriage anyway? Just you? Just the commenters on this site? Just the commenters at the Daily Kos? Just legislators? Just historians and sociologists? Just anthropologists (they would be the academic experts)? Just the church? Just the government? It’s an important question if we’re going to establish a society-wide definition.

    –If monogamy is to be a part of marriage law, who is going to enforce that? Do we really want to give the government that kind of oversight power? What will be the punisment for adultery? Annulment/auto-divorce? That would seem a bit unfair to the non-adulterous partner. Or is the measure merely symbolic? If it’s just symbolic, how does that actually change anything and ensure that legal marriages are “real” marriages?

    –If we’re denying same-sex marriage because of the unwillingness inability of just a segment of the gay population to be monogamous, then shouldn’t heterosexuals receive the same treatment?

    –Plenty of heterosexual married (or “married”, depending on your taste) couples engage in swinging and sleeping around. Why aren’t we talking about taking marriage away from them until they can all behave?

    ==================================================================

    Don’t get me wrong—I understand that most of you do apply the same moral strictures about relationships across the board. I congratulate and appreciate your consistency. I really do.

    I guess my point is twofold. First I hoped to express that marriage is way to complex to be viewed in any statement that uses a completely stark, black-white distinction, complete with equal signs.

    But more importantly I want to convey that if we’re waiting for 100% monogamy (as some here seem to require) from specific groups of people before they can be allowed to marry, then there should be nobody getting married. Anywhere. Ever. And if we’re willing to overlook (in just a legal/governmental sense) the non-monogamous heterosexual couples in order to protect the ones which are monogamous, should we not be willing to do the same for gay people, a majority of whom seem to be aspiring (at the least) to monogamy?

    You talk a lot about morality and the role/purpose of marriage. If marriage law is to have a social purpose for gay people, shouldn’t it be to incentivize precisely the faithful relationships that most young gay people like myself envision? Why does it currently send us precisely the opposite message? How does that further the monogamous ideal?

    Comment by PSUdain — June 21, 2008 @ 5:21 am - June 21, 2008

  16. I think you’re missing the point.

    The last thing anyone wants to do is 1) know all the gritty details about two people’s sex lives and then 2) make pronouncements about what sort of relationship they are in.

    Which is why gays should just avoid the whole “BUT WE WANT TO BE MARRIED TO”

    Straight married people laugh at gay people about this issue. These families struggle every day with their family and kids… and then they see gay people, rich and pampered, making yet more demands,, making themselves a public distraction yet again.

    What I hear over and over is that straight people are sick of every little group bitching about what it wants cuz it thinks its entitled.

    And because marriage’s foundations are in religion, they see this whole debate as a frontal assault on their religion.

    And for what? To have questions of just how many simultaneous sex buddies is it ok to have? Most people are revolted by the thought.

    Comment by Vince P — June 21, 2008 @ 5:32 am - June 21, 2008

  17. I find it interesting that this whole monogamy issue has come up as a way to attack gay marriage has appeared in the last few weeks.

    I find it interesting that Kevin comments on this blog apparently without knowing what it’s been saying for years.

    the majority of male couples I know …are not 100% physically monogamous.

    Ya think?

    these guys are confident enough with themselves and their partners to know that their physical needs are not the same as their emotional and relationship needs

    Translation: Like infants, these guys are consumed by their own alleged “needs”, treat all their partners like appliances, and fortunately have at least found partners who will ‘understand’.

    At the end of the day, they know who they’re… going home to and the folks they play [sic; cheat] with are well aware of it to.

    What a charming, heartwarming thought! (/sarc)

    [Relationships where one of the partners won't tolerate cheating] It ends up with lying, cheating, control, etc, etc.

    Newsflash, Kev: It’s lying and cheating anyway. “We have a great relationship because we love each other enough to have sex with other people” is BOTH lying and cheating. Just a different (and in some ways, greater) form of lying. Not that it’s the end of the world. Not that some straights don’t do it too. But geez, let’s use words honestly. Let’s not expect me, Kev, to participate in those guys’ (and your) lies to yourselves.

    In the end….marriage is not defined by society; it’s defined by the people who decide to commit it together.

    Then why are we having a public controversy over it? No one wants to stop gay couples from honestly committing. Most people think “More power to ‘em… if it’s real.”

    Marriage has 2 dimensions, public and private. The private marriage – the commitment between the 2 people – is indeed NOT defined by society, just as you say. While the public dimension – the State license that creates a new legal entity (“the marriage”) with distinct interests of its own, legally able to compel different behavior from the rest of society – is obviously defined by society.

    If defending marriage is so important, then why don’t we outlaw divorce?

    Your one fair-ish point. Not that we should outlaw divorce, but at least go back to “fault” divorce. That is the elephant in the room, for those who would “defend” marriage. The ‘threat’ posed by gay marriage – which might be very slightly there; that gay marriage, in today’s conditions, would make a culture of cheating a bit more acceptable – is 1/1000th of the damage that has already been done to marriage (and continues to be done) by easy, no-fault divorce. Let marriage’s defenders work on that.

    how about actually making it a crime again to cheat on one’s spouse?

    Back to the nuttiness. You had me, then you lost me.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 21, 2008 @ 9:31 am - June 21, 2008

  18. What I hear over and over is that straight people are sick of every little group bitching about what it wants cuz it thinks its entitled… and demanding that the institution change to accommodate their behavior, instead of changing their behavior to the norms of the institution.

    OK, so heterosexuals fail at monogamy, the point is, monogamy is the ideal and the expectation. We don’t improve ourselves if we set out to aim for mediocrity.

    If people want to have open relationships and jump into bed with anything that moves, then they should do that to the extent that they can bear the consequences. But that’s not what marriage should be regardless of sexual orientation.

    Comment by V the K — June 21, 2008 @ 10:20 am - June 21, 2008

  19. agreed

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 21, 2008 @ 10:47 am - June 21, 2008

  20. ILoveCapitalism:

    Not that we should outlaw divorce, but at least go back to “fault” divorce.

    Absolutely. No-fault divorce has done nearly immeasurable damage to marriage, turning it into some sort of social contract for narcissists, instead of an institution for the family. When you get married, life is no longer about you. It’s about the family. If you’re unhappy with your career or your life, you suck it up, you don’t get a divorce just to make life more convenient. I would say that this is a more fundamental issue than monogamy, although monogamy flows from it.

    Comment by rightwingprof — June 21, 2008 @ 11:17 am - June 21, 2008

  21. No-fault divorce has done nearly immeasurable damage to marriage,

    I can attest to that! I’ve seen many a marriage fail due to the narcissistic desires of one of the parties. Then I’m told not to be judgmental, since I don’t know what really went on.

    Remember in the days of Fault Divorce – the fault was adultery! That was deemed the breaking point of marriage! Of course people can repent, atone, make amends and repair a marriage after infidelity. I never understand the liberal mindset that won’t accept forgiveness and repentance.

    Kevin, I feel sorry for you if the sexual act and the emotional connection are completely divorced from one another in your world. What a sad lonely, alienating place you live in.

    On a brighter note, Dan has asked for a real dialog about gay marriage to take place. The Wall street Journal listened! Jonathan Rauch has an excellent article. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121400362307993399.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

    Also, a little unknown film, Quinceañera http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0451176/. Paints a rather ugly picture of a gay couple indulging in a three- way, and guess what, there actually is a victim in all this – it’s not all fun and games.

    Comment by Leah — June 21, 2008 @ 11:46 am - June 21, 2008

  22. The extent to which marriage between one woman and one man has been dumbed down by hormonal promiscuity is really just awful. I have watched college kids fight being torn apart because of parents who suddenly go roving.

    We have a whole industry of divorce lawyers, marriage counselors, social workers and family courts to deal with marriages that are in jeopardy of failing.

    When I look at the attitudes of some gays, it appears that they do not want to join the ideal of marriage and act accordingly. Apparently, they hunger for the “title” of being married, but are perfectly comfortable expanding the possibilities of misery by acting on impulse, hormonal urge and flights of idiotic fancy.

    Our society is torn apart by dumb straight people who can not control themselves within the institution of marriage. Why add the multiple combinations that gays can add to the failure side of the equation?

    Comment by heliotrope — June 21, 2008 @ 1:13 pm - June 21, 2008

  23. Because Kevin is clearly the one and only voice that speaks for all THE GAYS.

    No, because he confirms what I have seen over and over and over again. Do try not to be so hysterical.

    AE just confirms it; straights want the government to have the power to monitor monogamy and sexual relations.

    I never said anything of the sort. Hysterical and illogical.

    But I do want the people to decide what the definition of marriage is. And because of the policial agenda of the gay left, their history of using gay marriage, once codified into law, to attack people’s freedom of speech, association, and religious expression, and their open disdain for the ideals of the institution, I am absolutely going to encourage people against including gays in it.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 21, 2008 @ 1:51 pm - June 21, 2008

  24. is 1/1000th of the damage that has already been done to marriage (and continues to be done) by easy, no-fault divorce.

    I agree that no fault divorce has been horrible for marriage and would love to do away with it, but I think you underestimate the damage gays can do to the institution and to society once accepted into the institution. Gays in New jersey have sued religious organizations that refused to perform their civil union ceremonies and won. Gays in massachusetts have sued the Catholic adoption services for refusing to adopt to them and won, stating your disapproval of homosexuality in canada can get you charged with a hate crime. where gay marriage is legal in europe, marriage rates are much lower, divorce rates are higher, and out of wedlock births are much higher. Causation? I don’t know, but its plausible and certainly a correlation that is worrisome.

    Nonetheless, history shows the gay left is determined to use gay marriage as a weapon to force society to approve of them. Prevailing attitudes in the gay “community” about marriage are at odds with mainstream society. And, I’m sorry, but freedom of speech, association and religious expression are real rights that I’m not willing to sacrifice over the phony “right” of gays to be included in an institution thats purpose they can’t fulfill and which a majority of them have no intention of honoring anyway.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 21, 2008 @ 2:28 pm - June 21, 2008

  25. What’s actually kind of funny is that after denying that Kevin speaks for all gays, PSUDain goes on to cpmpletely agree with Kevin that monogamy really doesn’t matter that much.

    I hoped to express that marriage is way to complex to be viewed in any statement that uses a completely stark, black-white distinction, complete with equal signs.

    Which is the sophist’s way of saying that putting any kind of restrictions on behavior into the marital contract is unfair to people who don’t want to play by the rules, but want the benefit.

    Comment by V the K — June 21, 2008 @ 2:45 pm - June 21, 2008

  26. I never said anything of the sort. Hysterical and illogical.

    THAT WAS MY POINT! It was supposed to be ridiculous! It was equally ridiculous as saying Kevin’s statement is proof that the entire gay community thinks exactly the same. How did you miss that? I even said it, explicitly in my post:

    Ridiculous statement, isn’t it?

    Trust me, it’s just as ridiculous when you do it.

    As my sixth grade english teacher, Mrs. Smith, used to say, “When the guy on the street corner offers you the dum-dum pills before school, don’t take them.”

    Comment by PSUdain — June 21, 2008 @ 4:02 pm - June 21, 2008

  27. What’s actually kind of funny is that after denying that Kevin speaks for all gays, PSUDain goes on to cpmpletely agree with Kevin that monogamy really doesn’t matter that much.

    It’s a good thing you’re here VK, to tell me what I think. You know before you posted, I would have said that I disagreed with Kevin. Thanks for straightening me out on that. I’ll try harder to conform to what you think I should think in the future.

    Comment by PSUdain — June 21, 2008 @ 4:05 pm - June 21, 2008

  28. The problem PSUdain, that you fail to grasp, is that my statement was acknowleging the truth of precisely what Kevin said, your statement was putting words in my mouth that had nothing to do with what I said.

    So, while it may have been your point, you not only failed to make it, you were wrong to begin with.

    But keep poppin those dum dum pills! ;)

    Comment by American Elephant — June 21, 2008 @ 4:08 pm - June 21, 2008

  29. And, I notice, that PSUdain never said Kevin was wrong. Indeed, PSUdain has agreed with other gay people who state that monogamy is “authoritarian”.

    Another thing; PSUdain talks a lot about couples who “cheat” — but amazingly has nothing to say about couples who are married and choose to REPEATEDLY have promiscuous sex, as the example GPW cited describes.

    “Cheating” implies that something is an exception, that it is wrong, and that it shouldn’t be repeated.

    But then PSUdain tries to use the fact that people cheat and stop doing it as justification for people who are married and continue to have promiscuous sex with other people with no intention of stopping.

    And I loved this whine from him:

    If marriage law is to have a social purpose for gay people, shouldn’t it be to incentivize precisely the faithful relationships that most young gay people like myself envision?

    As GPW’s example showed, it is doing nothing of the sort; indeed, it is encouraging more gay promiscuity.

    What you are trying to do, PSUdain, is blame your inability and unwillingness to control yourself sexually on your lack of marriage. But, as GPW’s example shows, marriage is going to do nothing, repeat NOTHING, to stop you from continuing to be irresponsible and promiscuous, under the rationalization that “men are pigs” and that makes it OK.

    V the K nailed it when he described your statements as “the sophist’s way of saying that putting any kind of restrictions on behavior into the marital contract is unfair to people who don’t want to play by the rules, but want the benefit.”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2008 @ 5:23 pm - June 21, 2008

  30. 4: Okey dokey. Then can someone present to me a definition of marriage that everyone in this country agrees on? Everything in the relationships of these friends looks like a marriage to me, plus I guess even the few I know in MA who have that license. I just spent some vacation time with a couple who has been together 15 years and married in MA form the moment licenses became available. “Honey, did you remember to pack the sunscreen?” “Dear, can you call the housesitter and make sure the animals are OK?” “Why don’t we split that dessert?” “Let’s get that picture together so we can have it framed.” I was thinking specifically of the whole gay marriage issue a few times as I watched them, and frankly, you can’t tell me that these 2 aren’t married.

    How about all those “heterosexual” couples out there who are married by law, but they engage in things like wife-swapping? Do you say they are not married? Should the government get involved and revoke their marriage licenses? Nope, because they don’t have to prove their relationship, they don’t have to make justifications to people. They got that little piece of paper.

    Comment by Kevin — June 21, 2008 @ 6:16 pm - June 21, 2008

  31. How about all those “heterosexual” couples out there who are married by law, but they engage in things like wife-swapping? Do you say they are not married?

    Yes, GPW did — in the previous post.

    Sorry, Eric, that ain’t marriage. If you want to engage in occasional threesomes or any other extramarital liaisons, you should certainly be free to do so, but once you do, you can’t call yourself married. Nor should a swinging heterosexual couple call their non-exclusive union marriage.

    And I’d be all for revoking their marriage licenses. In fact, let’s make it easy; in a married relationship, if one person can prove the other strayed, the marriage is immediately invalidated and the unfaithful spouse gets nothing. No assets, no kids, nothing — and they owe the other person half of their income as alimony.

    Now, to the point, Kevin; obviously you support promiscuous extramarital affairs. Can you state publicly that your attitude is common among gays and lesbians, or are you willing to admit that gays and lesbians like you who support promiscuous extramarital affairs are a distinct and fringe group in the gay community, whose opinions are opposed by the vast majority of gay people?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2008 @ 6:33 pm - June 21, 2008

  32. NDXXX, thank for the spirited defense. :-)

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 21, 2008 @ 6:48 pm - June 21, 2008

  33. I do agree that government isn’t the thing that oughtta be enforcing monogamy, and it’s telling that government is the first place lefties go to when they think some pattern of behavior needs to be enforced.

    The best prophylactic against promiscuity is social stigmatization, and that sure as hell isn’t comin’ from the gay community. Or, for that matter, from a substantial portion of the heterosexual community; particularly that part of the heterosexual community that votes blue and rejects traditional family values.

    Frankly, if you happen to be a bitter old queen, it’s not because the right-wing Christianist breeders did anything to you. It’s because of the choices you made, the values you embraced, and the attitude you picked. Taking away marriage from the Christian right isn’t gonna make you any happier about your own circumstances.

    Comment by V the K — June 21, 2008 @ 7:40 pm - June 21, 2008

  34. It’s because of the choices you made, the values you embraced, and the attitude you picked.

    Sheesh, for a gay liberal to acknowledge that is roughly the same as a vampire going into a tanning booth.

    The best prophylactic against promiscuity is social stigmatization, and that sure as hell isn’t comin’ from the gay community.

    That’s a gross understatement. You’ve got Kevin on one side openly promoting promiscuity, and you’ve got PSUdain on the other going, “Well, uh, you know, it’s too complex, there is no black and white, you really can’t say that something is right or wrong.”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2008 @ 7:59 pm - June 21, 2008

  35. Frankly, the dynamics of gay relationships are changing. Who could really realistically think that in 1969 things would have changed so much in a mere 39 years. Monogamy is something we should all approve and support. In 1969 living openly as a gay male was nearly unthinkable.

    Comment by Swampfox — June 21, 2008 @ 9:13 pm - June 21, 2008

  36. Gee, after reading these postings one might think marriage is all about sexual preferences (I didn’t say same sex preferences). And here I always thought it was about love and two people committing to each others journey through life together. Guess I was wrong.
    If people marry based on rules and regulations set in place by archaic religions and intrusive governments, and not what they both want out of their life as a couple, they are bound to fail. Life is full of diversity and that also applies to marriage. It’s just not possible for one set of rules to work for everyone.
    Monogamy or Polyamory, that’s strictly up to the couple and nobody else. Marriage was established in a time when the average life expectancy was rarely beyond three decades, if even that long, and more so about property rights. It’s just not realistic to expect those rules established under different circumstances to adequately apply to the changing times. Life is all about the ebb and flow and the willingness to bend with the wind. The self righteous have no authority to place the burden of their fairy tale beliefs on anyone else.
    Most of what I’ve read here seems to confirm many people’s narrow mindedness reduced to name calling, insults, and a total lack of respect for someone’s opinion that doesn’t exactly match their own.
    Debate as much as you want what one should think “marriage” is or isn’t, but when one affords secular rights to a diversity of married couples, then deny other couples those same privileges by not allowing them to marry, where is the equality in that? How can a couple even attempt to follow the rules and regulations or your definition of marriage, when they aren’t even allowed to marry in the first place?

    Comment by kene — June 21, 2008 @ 10:36 pm - June 21, 2008

  37. The problem PSUdain, that you fail to grasp, is that my statement was acknowleging the truth of precisely what Kevin said, your statement was putting words in my mouth that had nothing to do with what I said.

    I think there’s a greater similarity than that. You take Kevin and extrapolate views outwards. I took you and extrapolated views outwards. Now I admit that I may have exaggerated somewhat, but you have in the past called for monogamy to be a part of marriage law. I’m not sure how that would be enforceable without government oversight…but that’s off topic. The point is, don’t extrapolate from one person to all gay people, please. I just get really tired of hearing “gays want to do this or that or the other thing.” Say “some gays” or something–just be accurate.

    And, I notice, that PSUdain never said Kevin was wrong. Indeed, PSUdain has agreed with other gay people who state that monogamy is “authoritarian”.

    [...]

    PSUdain talks a lot about couples who “cheat” — but amazingly has nothing to say about couples who are married and choose to REPEATEDLY have promiscuous sex, as the example GPW cited describes.

    [...]

    But then PSUdain tries to use the fact that people cheat and stop doing it as justification for people who are married and continue to have promiscuous sex with other people with no intention of stopping.

    Actually, I may never have said so explicitly here, but I have in the past. And while I don’t like to cede ground to an online bully (more on that later), I will make it clear: I do not agree with Kevin. I think Kevin’s ideas are flawed. I think ideal marriage is monogamous, but there is room for forgiveness if cheating occurs, even repeatedly. I do not think swinging is a lifestyle I would enjoy or could ever live, nor do I think it’s a good one in general. I have certainly never called monogamy “authoritarian”.

    Clear enough?

    On to the third bit: I am not trying to rationalize people who “swing” or have “open marriages”. All I was doing was responding to what I see as a habit of commenters to focus on only one aspect of marriage at a time (a few weeks ago it was only about child-rearing, now its only about monogamy) and speak in black and white terms, leaving no room for gray. If the statement “Marriage is monogamous, period,” is to absolutely true, people who have cheated are no longer married, ever. So clearly there is room for grey in real life.

    This does not absolve swingers, and you are right, cheating does imply something wrong was done because something wrong was done. And the fact that cheating does not (and should not, depending) end marriages is not justification for swinging.

    Is that also clear enough? Probably not. Since you seem to have some beef with me, you’re going to find some reason to discount what I’ve said and claim that I don’t actually mean it. But now I can’t say I didn’t try.

    Thing is I just want to provoke discussion beyond the same old lines I always hear here. I also get sick of everybody (including some gay people) being so down on “the gays”. Why can’t we talk more about the 80% figure? Why can’t we express happiness that people are planning on monogamy instead of relying on the last generation’s (which may be your generation, but is not mine) stereotypes and statistics to be down on all “the gays”?

    Comment by PSUdain — June 21, 2008 @ 10:48 pm - June 21, 2008

  38. NDT, you need to learn manners. I always hated bullies in childhood; I tolerate them no better on the internet. Look at this statement:

    What you are trying to do, PSUdain, is blame your inability and unwillingness to control yourself sexually on your lack of marriage. But, as GPW’s example shows, marriage is going to do nothing, repeat NOTHING, to stop you from continuing to be irresponsible and promiscuous, under the rationalization that “men are pigs” and that makes it OK.

    That might be true if I exhibited a lack of control. Or if I was promiscuous. Not that it’s any of your business. I’ve just had it with your arrogant demeanor and general inability to be civil, and I’m calling you out.

    If some “gay leftist” came on here and accused you of being anti-gay, you’d have a shit fit. But you think you are justified in calling me promiscuous, just because you think I have a contrary position on any particular issue?

    And this is not the first time you have called me promiscuous or claimed I “couldn’t control myself sexually”. What the hell gives you the right to make claims about my private life when you don’t even know me? Who the hell are you to make these bold and BOLDLY WRONG assumptions about me. Do you think you’re omnipotent and can discern my entire character from one post? Just who the hell do you think you are? God??

    Well, asshole, I am abstinent. And I will remain so until I am in a committed relationship. (Can’t say I’m waiting for marriage, as I can’t get one of those yet. At least not the kind that is most important to me—religious marriage. I’m glad the ELCA is (cautiously–we are Lutherans, after all) moving closer to having a service for same-sex couples.) And that committed relationship will be monogamous.

    [Comment edited due to violation of community terms of conduct.]

    Comment by PSUdain — June 21, 2008 @ 10:51 pm - June 21, 2008

  39. and frankly, you can’t tell me that these 2 aren’t married.

    The hell I can’t.

    They got that little piece of paper.

    You might have a “little piece of paper” that says you can drive a car. That don’t mean you can drive worth a damn. You might also have a “little piece of paper” that says you went to skrewl, but it doesn’t mean you know everything or, in fact, are particularly smart.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 21, 2008 @ 11:04 pm - June 21, 2008

  40. #36: “If some “gay leftist” came on here and accused you of being anti-gay, you’d have a shit fit.”

    Actually, if some “gay leftist” posted a comment on GP accusing NDT of being anti-gay, I suspect he would deal with it the way he has the other 652,421 times that it has happened in the past. With facts, logic and his signature, politically-incorrect candor that hysterical, emotional queens just can’t deal with. Obviously.

    Comment by Sean A — June 22, 2008 @ 12:26 am - June 22, 2008

  41. [...] example, my gay friend Dan Blatt, who supports same-sex marriage, did a lot of research for his GayPatriot Web site and found that “marriage equality” Web sites say very little about [...]

    Pingback by GAYS DEFEND MARRIAGE » Take the Monogamy Pledge — June 22, 2008 @ 1:36 am - June 22, 2008

  42. The biggest lesson I learn from reading this blog and its comments is that gay people are awful American-society-destroying-and-hating folks.

    Comment by jimmy — June 22, 2008 @ 1:41 am - June 22, 2008

  43. Actually, if some “gay leftist” posted a comment on GP accusing NDT of being anti-gay, I suspect he would deal with it the way he has the other 652,421 times that it has happened in the past. With facts, logic and his signature, politically-incorrect candor that hysterical, emotional queens just can’t deal with. Obviously.

    Oh, come on, I hear it all the time, complaints (almost always valid) about misrepresentation of gay Republicans (like myself) and gay conservatives. It is a valid grievance. I was not debating that.

    And it is also a valid grievance when a person impugns my character by accusing me of being promiscuous. (I might add that if I felt that monogamy held no particular value that I would not be offended by such an accusation.) He has every right to disagree and debate. He has no right to make slanderous accusations against me in the course of that debate, and I have had quite enough. I should be able to comment and disagree or agree without being accused of being “loose” or promiscuous.

    And apparently all you can do in response is name call. “Hysterical, emotional, queen,” indeed. God forbid you agree that personal attacks of the nature that he made are both unnecessary and unwarranted. I would remind you of their nature:

    What you are trying to do, PSUdain, is blame your inability and unwillingness to control yourself sexually on your lack of marriage. But, as GPW’s example shows, marriage is going to do nothing, repeat NOTHING, to stop you from continuing to be irresponsible and promiscuous, under the rationalization that “men are pigs” and that makes it OK. [emphasis mine]

    Would you be pleased if I flat out accused you of sleeping around or of being a slut? I doubt it. But clearly it’s fine to do so, as long as you disagree with the person you’re doing it to.

    Comment by PSUdain — June 22, 2008 @ 2:02 am - June 22, 2008

  44. The biggest lesson I learn from reading this blog and its comments is that gay people are awful American-society-destroying-and-hating folks.

    Based on…….???

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 22, 2008 @ 2:18 am - June 22, 2008

  45. TGC: he read his older comments and forgot he was the one who wrote them.

    Comment by Vince P — June 22, 2008 @ 2:49 am - June 22, 2008

  46. but you have in the past called for monogamy to be a part of marriage law

    Oh, please provide a quote. I’d love to see it! The fact is I’ve never said any such thing nor would I.

    Please quit lying about what I’ve said in order to make your asinine arguments.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 22, 2008 @ 4:15 am - June 22, 2008

  47. Then can someone present to me a definition of marriage that everyone in this country agrees on?

    Moral standards are not subject to consensus.

    All of the back and forth about cheating is a metaphor, or if you prefer, a representation of a more fundamental issue: Liberals do not understand morals.

    Morals are ideals. Human beings are flawed. When we fail to live up to these ideas, this is not hypocrisy; this is sin. All of us are guilty. That does not imply, however, that we should debase moral standards to better fit our flawed natures.

    And so it goes with monogamy. It is a moral idea. There is a very real difference between the couple, gay, straight, or other, who repeatedly, and without guilt, play around with others, and the couple (again, gay, straight, or other) where one cheats and repents. The former can only be said to be married in the most meaningless, legalistic sense. The latter are.

    The difference is that the former couple have no moral standard. The latter couple do, even though one cheats, because he repents. Should the husband or wife try to forgive and heal the marriage? Of course, but again, we are flawed, and the husband or wife may not be able to. Still, the couple has morals.

    Morals are not relative. Morals do not reflect what we do. They reflect what we should do.

    Comment by rightwingprof — June 22, 2008 @ 8:13 am - June 22, 2008

  48. #44: Based on leftist trolls like jimmy and his emotionally underdeveloped brethren.

    Comment by Attmay — June 22, 2008 @ 9:59 am - June 22, 2008

  49. We are not any different from our heterosexual brethren. Some of us are monogamous and some are not. And I have to say I have known men who spent their 20s chasing every skirt in town who met one woman and were monogamous. It does happen, even if it is rare. Some people just need to sow their wild oats and one day they have had their fill and are ready to settle down. Paul McCartney is the most famous example of this. He dated actress Jane Asher in the mid 60s and their made relationship problem was that he cheated on her. Within weeks of her turning down a marriage proposal he had begun dating Linda Eastman who he married and was faithful to until her death. It happens.

    I hate these conversations. I am not promiscuous nor are most of my friends. A few of them are. I also have friends who are in monogamous relationships, supposedly but not really monogamous relationships and open relationship. While I myself would be miserable in an open relationship other people seem to be happy in them and it seems to me that it’s a better arrangement than the lies and deceit that destroy way too many marriages.

    I won’t accuse people who have opted for honesty to have no morals. They know they are going to have sex outside the relationship and it’s been agreed to as part of the terms of the relationship. A good many marriages work that way. It’s just that straight people are usually reluctant to broadcast that fact that both partners have affairs. Gay couples are just (sometimes) more honest in that regard.

    But I do think it’s foolish to think that a piece of paper will change one’s nature. It hasn’t worked for straight couples and it’s not going to work for gay couples either. It will provide legal protection for those couples who are committed to each other (and yes I do know couples who are emotionally and otherwise committed to each other in spite of having sex with other people). Again, not something I fully understand but it’s something I have observed and I can’t discount that it exists.

    If extramarital sex is grounds for not allowing gays to marry then I guess no one should be allowed to marry since about half of straight men cheat on their wives. (And I suspect that number is a little low since we all lie a little about our sex lives.)

    Comment by Houndentenor — June 22, 2008 @ 10:00 am - June 22, 2008

  50. Already tried that argument. Didn’t fly–they accused me of trying to justify non-monogamy. Watch out or NDT will call you promiscuous. Because clearly anyone who disagrees with him is automatically a promiscuous gay leftist (who also wants to kill puppies and kittens, probably).

    Comment by PSUdain — June 22, 2008 @ 10:56 am - June 22, 2008

  51. I also get sick of everybody (including some gay people) being so down on “the gays”

    Hmmm. And I thought my comment applied across the board, if anything, more to heterosexuals, since I was addressing marriage.

    We are not any different from our heterosexual brethren. Some of us are monogamous and some are not.

    Yes, but the topic of the post was specifically about gay marriage. You can find my comments about traditional marriage on any number of different blogs, although (as I said above), narcissism has done a great deal of damage to the institution, and narcissism is not restricted to any group, sexual or otherwise.

    A social contract is a social contract. A social contract is amoral. Marriage is not a social contract. It is not a list of benefits you can take advantage of. The Anchoress has on a number of occasions suggested that we divorce the social contract from the institution, letting the Church handle the Sacrament (but not sign the license), and the county clerk, the license. It’s a pretty good idea. Anything that disconnects social contract from marriage is a good idea.

    But the fundamental problem is that people are unwilling to think of anything but themselves. Look at people talking about their divorce. They grew apart. Or she wasn’t happy with the relationship. Or he had midlife crisis and dumped her for the secretary. The common denominator here is that all of these people didn’t have marriages in the first place; they had living arrangements, and their top priority is themselves.

    Comment by rightwingprof — June 22, 2008 @ 1:38 pm - June 22, 2008

  52. (I might add that if I felt that monogamy held no particular value that I would not be offended by such an accusation.)

    I quote:

    I hoped to express that marriage is way to complex to be viewed in any statement that uses a completely stark, black-white distinction, complete with equal signs.

    Which V the K described spot-on:

    Which is the sophist’s way of saying that putting any kind of restrictions on behavior into the marital contract is unfair to people who don’t want to play by the rules, but want the benefit.

    And which “kene” put into practice a few comments later.

    If people marry based on rules and regulations set in place by archaic religions and intrusive governments, and not what they both want out of their life as a couple, they are bound to fail. Life is full of diversity and that also applies to marriage. It’s just not possible for one set of rules to work for everyone.
    Monogamy or Polyamory, that’s strictly up to the couple and nobody else. Marriage was established in a time when the average life expectancy was rarely beyond three decades, if even that long, and more so about property rights. It’s just not realistic to expect those rules established under different circumstances to adequately apply to the changing times. Life is all about the ebb and flow and the willingness to bend with the wind. The self righteous have no authority to place the burden of their fairy tale beliefs on anyone else.

    Simply put, PSUdain, if you value marriage and monogamy so much, one would think you would be incensed at people like kene, Kevin, and Eric Erbelding who are flagrantly and blatantly violating every tenet of marriage and relationships that you claim are “important” and “special” — and then claiming their gender and sexual orientation make it right.

    But instead you fall right back into the moral relativist’s position that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it’s convenient for them, and that there should be no rules or limits around marriage. You are more than willing to trash everything that marriage is and represents rather than admit that gay promiscuity is wrong or to call out another gay person’s idiotic behavior.

    That’s because you value the acceptance of other gays and sexual promiscuity more than you do what marriage represents or means — and if you’re willing to cheapen marriage rather than require gay and lesbian people to abide by it, you should never have it.

    And, as far as slander goes, I find it beyond amusing that you whine about being called promiscuous, but say nothing when gay and lesbian people like Houndentenor excuse gay promiscuity by claiming that heterosexuals in committed relationships are promiscuous, but just lying about it. There’s far more proof that you are promiscuous, especially given your attitude that promiscuity is perfectly OK and that monogamy is merely a matter of convenience, than there is that heterosexual couples are.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2008 @ 3:35 pm - June 22, 2008

  53. PSUdain, excellent points. I don’t agree with all of them, but you laid them out fairly, reasonably, and civilly. Unfortunately, if you aren’t self-righteous about your own monogamy, you could be branded as promiscuous apparently.

    Dan, I enjoy your posts regarding marriage and gay sexuality. I like the debate and hearing all sides of the issues here. Unfortunately, it is being poisoned by people slandering others. I’m not sure what you can do about it, but anything that you can do to call out those would be appreciative to those of us who enjoy civil discourse. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — June 22, 2008 @ 5:04 pm - June 22, 2008

  54. Unfortunately, if you aren’t self-righteous about your own monogamy, you could be branded as promiscuous apparently.

    The problem with that logic, Pat, is that there is nothing “self-righteous” about demanding monogamy in marriage — unless, of course, one is under the belief that promiscuity is a totally understandable and acceptable choice for those who are married and no different than any other choice like monogamy.

    The stabilizing power of marriage in society comes from the fact that it has established rules and meanings that create boundaries for acceptable behavior. You, on the other hand, demand that those rules and meanings may be ignored at will if they interfere with someone else’s need for sexual promiscuity. Instead of marriage being a societal institution, you turn it into a fashion accessory. Instead of realizing that marriage’s rules exist precisely to stop the irresponsible behavior of people like Eric Erbelding, you insist that marriage be redefined to accomodate Eric Erbelding instead.

    In short, you expect society to extend the same benefits and privileges that it gives to heterosexual couples who are sexually monogamous, producing children, and raising them to people like Eric Erbelding who are sexually promiscuous, producing no children, and using said benefits and privileges to facilitate an irresponsible and socially-destructive attitude.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2008 @ 5:27 pm - June 22, 2008

  55. Unfortunately, it is being poisoned by people slandering others. I’m not sure what you can do about it, but anything that you can do to call out those would be appreciative to those of us who enjoy civil discourse.

    Unfortunately, Pat, I think we should apply the same rule that gay liberals like you apply to marriage; there is no such thing as slander, because it is “way to complex to be viewed in any statement that uses a completely stark, black-white distinction, complete with equal signs.”

    After all, someone else might want to slander other people because it works for them; thus you have no right to criticize or demand that others criticize that behavior, because that would be applying your own moral standards and would be “self-righteous”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2008 @ 5:39 pm - June 22, 2008

  56. In our system, the state has a compelling interest in regulating marriage. As a consequence, a state issued marriage license is required to qualify as “married” under the law.

    What I read here from some commenters is a basic rejection of any compelling state interest. Certainly, it is a viable argument that the state should remove itself completely from regulating marriage and to make marriage an entirely private matter.

    Our marriage laws are a combination of regulatory management and moral dictate. We do not permit adults to wed little children. That is merely a moral issue, as many societies in the world have no such prohibitions. We stack our family law to deal most efficiently with the “licensed” couples and their offspring: this aids in administering the related laws.

    Gays can not reproduce, so the state compelling interest in regulating gay marriage would be nearly none. Gay brothers cannot affect the gene pool. Gay idiots can not affect the gene pool. Thirty gays forming a marriage unit can not affect the gene pool. Therefore, when considering gay marriage, there is no rational basis for the state to consider the family (meaning offspring) aspect.

    No state compelling interest in regulating marriage would, in my opinion, be unacceptable in our culture.

    Permitting gays to marry is a major change in the presumptions of Western traditional marriage. To further assume that monogamy is not an assumption of gay marriage is, in my opinion, a complete deal breaker.

    The overwhelming majority of our population is heterosexual. Heterosexuals control the culture and make the rules. The 14th Amendment brings meaning to the concept of “minority rights” and has been very effective in protecting individual rights.

    No gay is denied the due process of the law or the equal protections of the law when considering marriage. Any gay can read the marriage “requirements” and act accordingly. Naturally, the gay wants same sex marriage to be possible. This requires the heterosexual majority to agree. I can not see that the case has been made for the general society to change the marriage definitions.

    Marriage with multiple partners has a far greater track history than gay marriage. With the pressure of Islamic culture on the West, I think that polygamy has an edge over gay marriage when it comes to changing marriage definitions. Islamic marriages tend to produce large number of children, although Islam brings a strong demand for Sharia along with it.

    Before much longer, the United States will have to seriously face the concerns of Sharia and polygamy. In part, the United States will be concerned about protecting gays from a culture change that is distinctly unfriendly toward gays.

    Meanwhile, gays must make a strong case for opening the marriage restrictions for their desires without opening the gates for other types of change.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 22, 2008 @ 7:34 pm - June 22, 2008

  57. There’s far more proof that you are promiscuous, especially given your attitude that promiscuity is perfectly OK and that monogamy is merely a matter of convenience, than there is that heterosexual couples are.

    Proof. Ha. You’d make a lousy attorney if that’s what you think constitutes proof. And I have expressed that I don’t think promiscuity is ok. But just keep on running your mouth, making claims you know nothing about, and ignoring any statements I make about myself to the contrary. Clearly you know me better than my pastors and close friends (not to mention myself) who would all disagree with you.

    So, sadly, once more I must say, “I agree with your analysis of your hallucination.”

    The problem with that logic, Pat, is that there is nothing “self-righteous” about demanding monogamy in marriage

    No, being self-righteous is when you feel the need to trumpet on about just how totally and completely monogamous you are, and how superior that makes you compared to “those gays”. There is a difference between the righteousness of monogamy and the self-righteousness of self-aggrandizement and the passing of harsh judgment on others, especially without all the facts (or even any facts).

    Comment by PSUdain — June 22, 2008 @ 10:17 pm - June 22, 2008

  58. Honestly, though, no matter what I say or what certain others say, you will continue to insist that you know us better than people who actually know us in real life.

    You will continue to misconstrue, ignore, and mischaracterize statements. (Not to mention the arguments about semantics which you raise incessantly.)

    I really don’t know why I bother trying to discuss anything with you. I guess we all have our windmills that we tilt at, don’t we?

    Comment by PSUdain — June 22, 2008 @ 10:20 pm - June 22, 2008

  59. No, being self-righteous is when you feel the need to trumpet on about just how totally and completely monogamous you are, and how superior that makes you compared to “those gays”.

    Practicing monogamy would make one superior to promiscuous gays like Eric Erbelding.

    That is, of course, unless one believes that there’s nothing compelling about monogamy, that promiscuity in marriage is just as good as monogamy, and that gays who choose to be promiscuous should be supported and encouraged the same as gays who choose to be monogamous.

    In short, PSUdain, since you believe that expectations and morals for marriage should always take a back seat to the sexual desires of the participants, it shouldn’t surprise you that people like myself have no problem believing that you’re also putting your sexual desires ahead of your morals — or, more precisely, following the typical gay morality pattern shown by Kevin and kene in which whatever gets you off is right, and whatever restrains you from doing so is wrong.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2008 @ 11:44 pm - June 22, 2008

  60. Monogamy or Polyamory, that’s strictly up to the couple and nobody else.

    How about pedophilia?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 23, 2008 @ 12:57 am - June 23, 2008

  61. In short, PSUdain, since you believe that expectations and morals for marriage should always take a back seat to the sexual desires of the participants

    “I agree with your analysis of your hallucination.”

    Like I said,

    Honestly, though, no matter what I say or what certain others say, you will continue to insist that you know us better than people who actually know us in real life.

    You will continue to misconstrue, ignore, and mischaracterize statements.

    Comment by PSUdain — June 23, 2008 @ 1:10 am - June 23, 2008

  62. (In other words, I don’t believe that, and I’ve said as much. And now I’ve said it again, but it doesn’t matter because you will believe whatever is convenient for your worldview.)

    Comment by PSUdain — June 23, 2008 @ 1:14 am - June 23, 2008

  63. 34: Do you ever get tired of twisting people’s words to your own meaning? Of course that’s the favorite sport of almost every supporter of this site. You can’t find any good reason to deny gays the right to marry, so you need to open up this debate.

    60: Oh, there’s a good response. Why didn’t you just throw bestiality in for good measure? Not sure what makes you all gay when you so easily use the same stupid arguments that homophobes so easily against gays.

    Comment by Kevin — June 23, 2008 @ 1:14 am - June 23, 2008

  64. (By the way, have you ever bothered to follow the link about the “analysis of your hallucination”? Might be informative.)

    Comment by PSUdain — June 23, 2008 @ 1:18 am - June 23, 2008

  65. In other words, I don’t believe that, and I’ve said as much.

    Actually, you’ve said exactly that.

    I hoped to express that marriage is way to complex to be viewed in any statement that uses a completely stark, black-white distinction, complete with equal signs.

    Which, as V the K aptly pointed out, “is the sophist’s way of saying that putting any kind of restrictions on behavior into the marital contract is unfair to people who don’t want to play by the rules, but want the benefit.”

    Or, put differently, it’s saying that there’s nothing compelling about monogamy, that promiscuity in marriage is just as good as monogamy, and that gays who choose to be promiscuous should be supported and encouraged the same as gays who choose to be monogamous — and definitely, not under any circumstances, punished or criticized.

    The hilarious part is that you act surprised that the ELCA doesn’t accept this view; indeed, they take the “stark, black and white” view that marriage requires monogamy, which you have criticized as not reflecting marriage’s “complexities”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2008 @ 1:57 am - June 23, 2008

  66. Do you ever get tired of twisting people’s words to your own meaning?

    Actually, Kevin, your words are quite damning by themselves.

    Interestingly enough, the majority of male couples I know (mostly together 12 years and longer) are not 100% physically monogamous. In all of these cases, both partners are aware that the other “plays around” some times and in some cases both of them are playing around with a 3rd person or maybe even more sometimes.

    Which you then, of course, defend as being perfectly OK.

    As I said before, obviously you support promiscuous extramarital affairs. Can you state publicly that your attitude is common among gays and lesbians, or are you willing to admit that gays and lesbians like you who support promiscuous extramarital affairs are a fringe group in the gay community, whose opinions are opposed by the vast majority of gay people and who are shunned because they obviously put sexual pleasure ahead of responsibility?

    And Kevin, that’s a good reason to deny gays like you marriage: the fact that you admit you’re promiscuous, that you see nothing wrong with promiscuity, and that, instead of accepting responsibility for your inability and unwillingness to control yourself sexually, you try to blame straight people instead.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2008 @ 2:08 am - June 23, 2008

  67. Heliotrope, well said.

    Comment by rightwingprof — June 23, 2008 @ 7:16 am - June 23, 2008

  68. The problem with that logic, Pat, is that there is nothing “self-righteous” about demanding monogamy in marriage

    It would have been a problem if I said that, but I never did. In fact, I agree with demanding monogamy in marriage, although I admit I’m not as fervent as you about it, and don’t feel the need to say it every time when we have a civil discussion about marriage. PSUdain was discussing the realities of the situation. I don’t understand why he (or anyone else) when discussing marriage has to automatically blurt out they are monogamous, as if by not doing so, that automatically means they are promiscuous. And it didn’t even help that he later on said he was celibate and will be monogamous in a committed relationship. But that wasn’t enough, because you had “proof” that PSUdain was promiscuous, “proof” in which you botched the facts, and even if true would not prove your point.

    1. You, on the other hand, demand that those rules and meanings may be ignored at will if they interfere with someone else’s need for sexual promiscuity.

    2. Instead of marriage being a societal institution, you turn it into a fashion accessory.

    3. Instead of realizing that marriage’s rules exist precisely to stop the irresponsible behavior of people like Eric Erbelding, you insist that marriage be redefined to accomodate Eric Erbelding instead.

    All mischaracterizations of what I have said here or elsewhere. All in one paragraph. Excellent job.

    Okay, how about this. Except for eliminating the phrase “of the opposite sex,” I don’t want ANY of the rules for marriage changed. How’s that?

    In short, you expect society to extend the same benefits and privileges that it gives to heterosexual couples who are sexually monogamous, producing children, and raising them to people like Eric Erbelding who are sexually promiscuous, producing no children, and using said benefits and privileges to facilitate an irresponsible and socially-destructive attitude.

    I’ll make it shorter for you. I expect society to extend the same benefits that it does to heterosexual couples who will not or cannot procreate to homosexual couples.

    Unfortunately, Pat, I think we should apply the same rule that gay liberals like you apply to marriage; there is no such thing as slander, because it is “way to complex to be viewed in any statement that uses a completely stark, black-white distinction, complete with equal signs.”

    Talk to me when you hold yourself to your own standards before you disdain to make up what mine are. The fact is that because someone had a different opinion or take on marriage and the realities, you branded someone promiscuous. You repeated that mischaracterization when you were told otherwise, and offered garbage that you said constituted “proof.”

    After all, someone else might want to slander other people because it works for them;

    Tell me, how does your slandering others work for you? Does it give you credibility from others? Does it make up for your own shortcomings?

    thus you have no right to criticize or demand that others criticize that behavior,

    The hell I don’t!

    because that would be applying your own moral standards and would be “self-righteous”.

    Do you even proofread the nonsense you write. Come on, NDT. You’re usually intelligent. But when it comes to some topics, you become completely unhinged. What you write has no reality as to what has transpired.

    Even if PSUdain did believe that it was okay for married couples to be promiscuous, what right do you have to slander him, and then repeat it with “proof” that a two-year-old could determine doesn’t come close to constituting proof?

    Comment by Pat — June 23, 2008 @ 8:05 am - June 23, 2008

  69. What a pointless debate..but the fact that it goes on is essentially why the majority of people in this country don’t want what is being proposed.

    Society has already settled on what marriage is.

    Comment by Vince P — June 23, 2008 @ 8:15 am - June 23, 2008

  70. heliotrope, not well argued.

    What I read here from some commenters is a basic rejection of any compelling state interest. Certainly, it is a viable argument that the state should remove itself completely from regulating marriage and to make marriage an entirely private matter.

    I haven’t followed most of this thread, so I’ll plead ignorance to the comments you’re specifically referring to – but, for the record, I as a gay marriage supporter do not believe that or argue that.

    We do not permit adults to wed little children. That is merely a moral issue…

    “Merely” a moral issue?

    Gays can not reproduce, so the state compelling interest in regulating gay marriage would be nearly none.

    Au contraire. Gays are reproductively equivalent to an infertile heterosexual couple; gays already can and do raise children, and, with the help of outsiders and technology, gays already can and do bring forth new children that are genetically related to at least one parent. (And within another decade or two, possibly both.) In that light, let’s try an equivalent version of your statement:

    “Infertile straight couples can not reproduce, so the state compelling interest in regulating infertile-straight marriage would be nearly none. Infertile straight couples cannot affect the gene pool…”

    Make sense? I say, no: not at all.

    Permitting gays to marry is a major change in the presumptions of Western traditional marriage.

    That has not been demonstrated. At least since Greek and Roman times, Western marriage has been an exclusive union of 2 people who are not already a family. Male and female, yes. And gay marriage is vastly less of a change to that structure than would be, say, the re-introduction of Biblical, African Islamic or early-Mormon polygamy.

    To further assume that monogamy is not an assumption of gay marriage is, in my opinion, a complete deal breaker.

    There is an argument I’m sympathetic too. Interestingly, I have argued it better (in some other threads) than you have bothered to here.

    Any gay can read the [heterosexual] marriage “requirements” and act accordingly.

    You mean, heliotrope, that if a gay person wants marriage and family, they should marry someone of the *opposite* sex? That is a truly awful idea! As is well known, marriage is difficult enough as it is between 2 people who have a sexual bond (or are capable of forming one with each other); marriage between 2 people who are incapable of forming a sexual bond is usually a disaster for all concerned, including society.

    Marriage with multiple partners has a far greater track history than gay marriage. With the pressure of Islamic culture on the West, I think that polygamy has an edge over gay marriage when it comes to changing marriage definitions.

    What are you saying there? that you would accept polygamy, before gay marriage? Oh, my God.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2008 @ 10:12 am - June 23, 2008

  71. Society has already settled on what marriage is.

    Right. Including gay marriage. (CA resident here.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2008 @ 10:16 am - June 23, 2008

  72. (Vince’s next move:) But CA gay marriage could easily be changed this November.

    (ILC’s next move:) Ah. Then you admit that society *hasn’t* settled on what marriage is, once and for all.

    Look – Like it or not (and may I say, I don’t entirely like it, because it was achieved judicially) – gay marriage is the law in California. The people who want to make it exclusively between a man and a woman are now, in California, the people seeking to *CHANGE* the definition of marriage. Gays aren’t. Just a fact to keep in mind. I know your State is probably different.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2008 @ 10:23 am - June 23, 2008

  73. I expect society to extend the same benefits that it does to heterosexual couples who will not or cannot procreate to homosexual couples.

    Perhaps society should lift the licenses of heterosexuals who don’t reproduce within a certain time limit. Would that make things more “equal”?

    I believe that civil unions have a chance for gays. I see them as a way to formalize the government paperwork to deal with legal impediments and complications. And, civil unions do not redefine marriage.

    But clearly, there are gays who want the redefinition of marriage more than they want civil unions.

    It is beyond me why gays insist that their minority version of marriage should automatically sway the heterosexual majority. To rely on the fallacy of accident (aged, infertile, determined to be childless heterosexuals) as a reason for same sex marriage is only proof that the gay marriage argument is thin broth.

    Are gay couples prohibited from living loving, monogamous, happy, productive lives? I ask, not as a snide comment, but because the example of gay couples living loving, monogamous, happy, productive lives would go a long way toward influencing the heterosexual majority.

    Meanwhile some gays present some fairly obtuse arguments for why they should be respected when they let it all hang out.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 23, 2008 @ 11:12 am - June 23, 2008

  74. PSUdain was discussing the realities of the situation.

    You mean, he was making excuses for promiscuous gays and explaining why gay and lesbian people shouldn’t be expected to be monogamous in marriage – because marriage is “too complex” and “black and white” rules are wrong.

    And it didn’t even help that he later on said he was celibate and will be monogamous in a committed relationship.

    See above, as in: since he’s already demonstrated that he doesn’t believe in rules or limits when they apply to promiscuous sex, why on earth should we expect his behavior to match what he claims he is? He’s already demonstrated that he will rationalize promiscuous behavior; why should we expect that he isn’t rationalizing his own?

    I expect society to extend the same benefits that it does to heterosexual couples who will not or cannot procreate to homosexual couples.

    So you expect society to punish heterosexual people for biological failures over which they have no control and the choices they make rather than to acknowledge that homosexual couples are incapable of procreation, regardless of choice and even if they are in perfect health.

    As heliotrope wisely put it, the fact that you can only produce miniscule exceptions to support your argument demonstrates how thin it is in the first place.

    The problem here, Pat, is that you simply cannot admit that heterosexual and homosexual couples are different when it comes to questions of why marriage exists, what it’s intended to do, and the sociological implications of it. You have been brainwashed to irrationally scream “equality” when it should be obvious to anyone that two things that are vastly different have no need to be treated “equally” and that, in fact, it makes no sense to do so.

    PSUdain, for example, has argued that gay and lesbian couples are too “complex” to be bound by the “black and white” rules of traditional marriage. Instead of demanding that those rules be changed, why not simply create a new stricture that acknowledges gay and lesbian complexity. Why should you try to force couples that are obviously promiscuous, as Kevin pointed out the vast majority of gay couples are, into a structure that is based wholly on the expectation of monogamy and sexual commitment?

    Heliotrope again hit the nail on the head; the problem here is that you want the redefinition of marriage more than you want the legal benefits and protections.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2008 @ 11:55 am - June 23, 2008

  75. you want the redefinition of marriage more than you want the legal benefits and protections.

    The legal benefits and protections are available through civil unions. The agenda of the SSM movement can not be about anything other than changing the definition of marriage to fit their predilections.

    Comment by V the K — June 23, 2008 @ 12:26 pm - June 23, 2008

  76. #70: ILC, I could not have said it better. I agree with every word of that comment. Had you not written it, I may have. I especially agree with your remarks regarding marrying the opposite sex to have a family. Whatever our other differences, well said.

    Comment by PSUdain — June 23, 2008 @ 12:39 pm - June 23, 2008

  77. Which, as V the K aptly pointed out, “is the sophist’s way of saying that putting any kind of restrictions on behavior into the marital contract is unfair to people who don’t want to play by the rules, but want the benefit.”

    V the K does not have a monopoly on interpretation of my statements. What I meant is that there are incidents where marriages have weathered a breach of monogamy, and that making a statement (as one commenter did) that any breach of monogamy, period, would morally nullify a marriage is not correct. All I was arguing against were absolutes. I absolutely hate it when people make absolute statements. Because they’re almost always absolutely inaccurate.

    I certainly was not encouraging nor excusing non-monogamous marriages.

    Nor, if you looked at my “grey” counter examples again, would you find one of them to be a marriage that was non-monogamous by design. (That would be because I don’t view that as falling into a grey area. And before you accuse me of putting it in the category of “right”, let me say that it would clearly fall into “wrong”.)

    Or, put differently, it’s saying that there’s nothing compelling about monogamy, that promiscuity in marriage is just as good as monogamy, and that gays who choose to be promiscuous should be supported and encouraged the same as gays who choose to be monogamous — and definitely, not under any circumstances, punished or criticized.

    Criticized yes. Punished–well, no more than the government punishes promiscuous heteros, which is, I remind you, NOT AT ALL. (And certainly not with the denial of marriage licenses.)

    The hilarious part is that you act surprised that the ELCA doesn’t accept this view; indeed, they take the “stark, black and white” view that marriage requires monogamy, which you have criticized as not reflecting marriage’s “complexities”.

    No. I am disappointed that the ELCA does not yet bless same sex couples, but, as I don’t think married couples should sleep around, I am not surprised at all that they do not support non-monogamy. I do not support non-monogamy. (Feel free to ignore that statement about my beliefs. As usual.)

    And the ELCA doesn’t take a “black and white” view of almost anything. For heaven’s sake did you read our Draft Statement on Human Sexuality? (I did.) It was sixty four pages long. Black and white proclamations do not take sixty pages.

    Plus, if it supports anything, the ELCA supports forgiveness in the face of a breach. (And even in the face of not non-monogamy by design, though it does not support that action. Forgiveness is a bit of a big deal.) But feel free to explain Lutheran theology to me, too. Clearly you would know more about it than a person raised in the church and who continues to be actively involved. (I certainly do not claim to be an authority on theology, just an involved and educated layperson.)

    PSUdain, for example, has argued that gay and lesbian couples are too “complex” to be bound by the “black and white” rules of traditional marriage.

    No. I’ve never said that. But of course, I agree with your analysis of your hallucination. If I had actually said that I would have been wrong. (Already explained in this post what that was about.)

    You’re like the news media: Latch on to one sound bite and spin it out of meaning, out of context, and out of control.

    So, now that I’ve re-explained myself (again), please do continue to tell me what I really think, NDT.

    Comment by PSUdain — June 23, 2008 @ 1:11 pm - June 23, 2008

  78. “Infertile straight couples can not reproduce, so the state compelling interest in regulating infertile-straight marriage would be nearly none. Infertile straight couples cannot affect the gene pool…”

    Key difference.

    There is no way of easily telling whether or not a straight couple is infertile minus extensive intrusion into their private lives.

    However, it is a certainty that a gay couple is.

    Looking at it from a different angle, even when there is a possibility that a couple is infertile, marriage is not redefined to suit them; for instance, infertile sibling couplings are not allowed, nor are multiple marriages among older people. The rules are evenly and equally applied.

    You mean, heliotrope, that if a gay person wants marriage and family, they should marry someone of the *opposite* sex? That is a truly awful idea! As is well known, marriage is difficult enough as it is between 2 people who have a sexual bond (or are capable of forming one with each other); marriage between 2 people who are incapable of forming a sexual bond is usually a disaster for all concerned, including society.

    I fail to see this line of reasoning.

    If it is that important to you to be married, it should be obvious that you prioritize that over meeting your every sexual desire. If it is more important that your sexual desires be fulfilled, you should not marry. There are ample examples of “gay” and “lesbian” men marrying, having sex and producing children, only to turn around and leave the relationship claiming that their sexual gratification was more important. Of course, they blame “society” for “forcing” them to marry, but the simple fact of the matter is that they chose to do so and ultimately were unwilling and unable to keep their commitments.

    What you are asking is for society to redefine marriage to fit your sexual desires and conveniences, regardless of any other consideration. You have stripped away one of the most essential components of the marriage institution — that people willingly and voluntarily accept restrictions on their sexual activity for the greater good of a committed relationship, stable childrearing structure, and perpetuation of society’s future — and replaced it with sexual gratification as the end goal.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2008 @ 1:13 pm - June 23, 2008

  79. Criticized yes. Punished–well, no more than the government punishes promiscuous heteros, which is, I remind you, NOT AT ALL. (And certainly not with the denial of marriage licenses.)

    A brief explanation: I have certain personal moral views. I think people should follow the same, because I think they are correct. One of these views is that marriage should be monogamous. I support this and will speak in favor of such.

    However, I draw the line at using the government to advocate my point of view. I think marriage should be monogamous. The government, apparently does not hold with that view (or it would be an explicit, pardon the pun, part of the law). So, until such time as the government requires monogamy from heterosexuals as an explicit prerequisite to marriage, the same should not be required of homosexual couples (I canot emphasize the next words enough) BY THE GOVERNMENT.

    I will continue my personal support for such. But I will not advocate the involvement of the government.

    I would like to add that I do agree w/ Dan that promotion of monogamy within the community (but not within law) holds a huge ability to sway public opinion in our favor.

    Comment by PSUdain — June 23, 2008 @ 1:20 pm - June 23, 2008

  80. There is no way of easily telling whether or not a straight couple is infertile minus extensive intrusion into their private lives.Wrong answer. First of all, show me any woman over 80 and I will show you a woman who is infertile. Second, some States already administer blood tests for a marriage license, for crying out loud. That’s not intrusive???! And/or, a very basic fertility test couldn’t easily be added? (For the man, all you have to is put a drop of his sperm under a slide and see if they swim.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2008 @ 1:44 pm - June 23, 2008

  81. Sorry, I messed up the blockquote. This is what I meant to say:

    There is no way of easily telling whether or not a straight couple is infertile minus extensive intrusion into their private lives.

    Wrong answer. First of all, show me any woman over 80 and I will show you a woman who is infertile. Second, some States already administer blood tests for a marriage license, for crying out loud. That’s not intrusive???! And/or, a very basic fertility test couldn’t easily be added? (For the man, all you have to is put a drop of his sperm under a slide and see if they swim.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2008 @ 1:45 pm - June 23, 2008

  82. even when there is a possibility that a couple is infertile, marriage is not redefined to suit them

    Oh yes it is redefined to suit them! They are allowed to marry. That is, no fertility requirement is imposed on them.

    It should be the same for gay couples. Not as a matter of “rights” or “justice”, mind you – because a State license for anything is a privilege, not a right, meaning the State should get to exclude whom it wants – but simply as a matter of intelligent public policy, i.e., the State’s interest in strengthening families – especially where children are *already* present – and encouraging marriage in general.

    As for this:

    The legal benefits and protections are available through civil unions. The agenda of the SSM movement can not be about anything other than changing the definition of marriage to fit their predilections.

    I agree that the State’s interest, which I just outlined, can equally be met through calling it “civil unions”. Or through calling it “marriage”. Whatever. I don’t care what it’s called, in either direction. I want the substance, not the window-dressing. I find the whole “name” issue silly. Which is to say: I find the anti-SSM “agenda” just as silly (since it is just as much about fighting over a name) as the pro-SSM-name “agenda”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2008 @ 1:55 pm - June 23, 2008

  83. If it is that important to you to be married, it should be obvious that you prioritize that over meeting your every sexual desire. If it is more important that your sexual desires be fulfilled, you should not marry.

    NDT: The basis of marriage is the biological, sexual bond. Not to say that marriage is “about sex”. No sirree. But to say that all of the hormonal, neuronal, etc. bonding that sex sets off is a crucial aid to stabilizing the marriage and making it successful and lasting. Marriage is tough enough that even with that stuff, it still often isn’t succesful or lasting. But without that stuff – without some level of instinctual, biological bonding having taken place between you and your partner at some point – your odds are that much worse. Hence, the only rational encouragement for the State to provide is for straight people to marry straight people (of the opposite sex), and for gay people to marry / “civil unionize” gay people (of the same sex).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2008 @ 2:01 pm - June 23, 2008

  84. Sorry, I meant to say: Not to say that marriage is “about sexual *indulgence*”, no sirree. (Because marriage is obviously “about sex” in a very deep sense – the “we are bonded” sense that I just outlined.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2008 @ 2:04 pm - June 23, 2008

  85. (That’s why infidelity is, or should be, such a problem.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2008 @ 2:05 pm - June 23, 2008

  86. (To re-visit the Eric Erbelding case: if infidelity isn’t a problem for you, then no, you’re not really married. You’re just partners of convenience, who were dumb enough to lie to yourselves and the State about it.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2008 @ 2:10 pm - June 23, 2008

  87. Perhaps society should lift the licenses of heterosexuals who don’t reproduce within a certain time limit. Would that make things more “equal”?

    It might, but that was never my argument, and something that I don’t advocate, no matter what happens.

    However, I did point out, as well as ILC (who did a much better job of it) that infertile couples are not banned, including cases where it’s obvious. Therefore, using the argument that same sex couples cannot have children, and thus it’s okay to ban them from marriage is flawed. NDT can continually point out obvious biological facts all he wants, and draw arbitrary conclusions from it, doesn’t change the fact that many find the argument flawed.

    But clearly, there are gays who want the redefinition of marriage more than they want civil unions.

    Maybe so. It’s a free country and we are all entitled to our opinions. My opinion is that my advocating for same sex marriage is not contingent on changing the definition of marriage, except for the “of the opposite sex” part.

    I’d even accept calling it something different for gay persons. As ILC said, the substance is more important. But I’ll call it whatever I want, and you could call it whatever you want.

    To rely on the fallacy of accident (aged, infertile, determined to be childless heterosexuals) as a reason for same sex marriage is only proof that the gay marriage argument is thin broth.

    Not sure what you mean by “accident,” but I pretty much agree with you there, except it’s “thin broth” on both sides of the argument who use this.

    Are gay couples prohibited from living loving, monogamous, happy, productive lives? I ask, not as a snide comment, but because the example of gay couples living loving, monogamous, happy, productive lives would go a long way toward influencing the heterosexual majority.

    As to your first question, the answer is no. Just as I believe that heterosexuals don’t need marriage to live happy, productive lives, even if they have children. But I’m not advocating eliminating marriage for heterosexuals either. As for your latter comment, it’s a fair point.

    Meanwhile some gays present some fairly obtuse arguments for why they should be respected when they let it all hang out.

    No argument there. But I’ve seen straight persons present fairly obtuse arguments for why they believe same sex couples should be denied marriage.

    Comment by Pat — June 23, 2008 @ 2:40 pm - June 23, 2008

  88. V the K:

    The benefits are not available through civil unions as shown by a study done by the New Jersey Legistlature. If the benefits were available through civil unions then your statement that “the agenda of the SSM movement can not be about anything other than changing the definition of marriage to fit their predilections” would be true. But since these benefits are not available on a pragmatic, empirical level, but only asserted on an abstract level, it is not true (the ideal solution would be to change all civil marriages into civil unions and allow religions to use the term “marriage” exclusively).

    Since civil unions do not work, what other recourse is possible? (I ask this questions in the belief that you and others in this thread do not wish to discriminate against gays and lesbians, but at the same time oppose same-sex marriage.)

    This is where the problem lies: marriage as a moral institution where monogamy is an ideal runs into conflict with marriage as a civil union that grants benefits and privileges. But on the civil side of the equation, there is no penalty to heterosexuals who are not monogamous — there is not even the requirement that they pledge monogamy in order to obtain a marriage license and have a civil marriage ceremony.

    When people get married they are are making commitments to two understandings of marriage: the civil one and the religious one (though a couple who marry only in a civil ceremony commit to only one).

    The civil commitment will only match the religious one in a theocracy where the religious is co-equivalent to the civil. The United States is not a theocracy, so there is no such match. If there were, there would not be the institution of civil divorce since some religious traditions do not permit it.

    From a religious point of view, heterosexuals involved in the swinging lifestyle may not be considered to be married, but from a civil viewpoint they are since engaging in swinging behavior does not invalidate their civil marriage.

    As for redefining marriage: at one time marriage was an exchange of property between two men — one man (the father) gave his property (his daughter) to another man (her future husband). The definition of marriage has changed so it is no longer thought of as an exchange of property. Women can object now and assert their freedom to marry the person of their choice (so long as it is a man). Society even has no-fault divorce that allows for the dissolution of a commitment that at one time was thought to be unbreakable by humans (having been put together by God).

    If these changes to the tradition of marriage are acceptable and there are no campaigns to undo them (and no longer treating women as property but as human beings with freedoms is nothing if not a radical change), allowing same-sex is change within a tradition that has undergone radical change over the centuries. If same-sex marriage is a change distinct and unlike the other radical changes that have occurred in marriage, what makes it so? (and even Aquinas tripped up on the generative argument).

    As for the level of promiscuity among gays, lesbians and heterosexuals, I do not know of any scientifically rigorous research on the subject. There are many anecdotes, but should a society base its laws on anecdote and rumour? The unverifiable and the emotional are useless when it comes to setting up rules for society. Relying on emotions, especially, brings humans down to level of animals.

    Reason, logic, and rationality are God’s greatest gifts to human beings and are what allows us to rise above the animal within us. Personal distaste for same-sex marriage or interracial marriage or inter-religious marriage is just that: personal distaste. To make an effective argument, personal distaste must be superceded by logic and reason which is what humans share despite the personal likes and dislikes they possess.

    Society has gone by many different definitions of marriage over the centuries, one supplanting another as humans evolved and became more enlightened. Same-sex marriage is another evolution that allows gays and lesbians to enjoy the same freedoms for themselves and their families that opposite-sex couples do. What rational reason is there to discriminate against my husband, myself, and our family? (of course if you believe gays and lesbians should not have children, then we disagree on a different level). I think it benefits children to be raised by parents who have been able to marry (without coercion) the person of their choice (excepting incest).

    As for same-sex marriage being the gateway to plural marriage: I see no evidence of this being the case. Allowing same-sex marriage neither helps nor hinders any argument for plural marriage. Whether or not same-sex marriage is allowed, the possibility always exists that someone will make an argument for plural marriage. When analyzed rationally and logically, it will rise and fall on its own merits.

    Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — June 23, 2008 @ 2:50 pm - June 23, 2008

  89. ILC #70 asks:

    You mean, heliotrope, that if a gay person wants marriage and family, they should marry someone of the *opposite* sex?

    Yes. The operative word here is “wants.” Our marriage tradition allows everyone the same set of rules. This is not an equality issue, it is a preference issue.

    I can not see any difference between “wanting” same sex marriage or plural partners or marrying a child or…….

    Have we settled on scientific fact that being gay is an immutable act of nature and therefore gays are a separate class of humanity?

    “Merely” a moral issue?

    Many societies have marriage between adults and infants. Our marriage tradition prohibits such unions for moral reasons. Our culture believes that a person should be mature enough to understand marriage and be physically advanced enough to create and care for children. We could have a moral code that accommodates a regency for such unions, but we do not.

    “Infertile straight couples can not reproduce, so the state compelling interest in regulating infertile-straight marriage would be nearly none. Infertile straight couples cannot affect the gene pool…”

    Make sense? I say, no: not at all.

    It makes perfect sense if you try to argue that homosexual marriage should be acceptable on the fallacy of accident (aged, infertile, determined to be childless heterosexuals) as a reason for same sex marriage. If that is a salient premise (which it can not be in formal logic) then the argument for gay marriage is on very weak footing. And, if gay marriage efforts fail, gays using that fallacy of accident argument should insist that childless heterosexual marriages should be dissolved.

    And gay marriage is vastly less of a change to that structure than would be, say, the re-introduction of Biblical, African Islamic or early-Mormon polygamy.

    Back at you:

    ” Interestingly, I have argued it better (in some other threads) than you have bothered to here.” (ILC quote in#70.)

    What are you saying there? that you would accept polygamy, before gay marriage? Oh, my God.

    In no way am I saying that. But if we are going to convene the great national court on redefining marriage, I do believe that the polygamists will have a lot of history on their side.

    I oppose gay marriage on the basis that no compelling state interest has been shown as to why it should exist. If gays are a separate, biological class of humanity, then I will have to rethink the 14th Amendment application on the basis of equality.

    Meanwhile, “I believe that civil unions have a chance for gays. I see them as a way to formalize the government paperwork to deal with legal impediments and complications. And, civil unions do not redefine marriage.” (My comment in #73.)

    ILC, we simply disagree on gay marriage. I am waiting for the compelling reason to rethink my opinion. I understand “wanting” respect, a sense of belonging, making oneself happy, meshing with the general society, etc. I know many gay couples who have earned great respect, are quite happy and a fine contributors to the general society and important people in the public square. There are also a fair number of gays who want to bring their special sexual expression to the public square and ram it down the general public’s craw. The odds are strongly against them and they are pounding the sympathy for same sex unions or marriage to a pulp.

    What I read here is conservatives who understand the general society and liberals who “want” it all their way. Conservatives know better than to try to enter formal argument with points based on moral relativism. That is the crux of the disagreements you will read above.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 23, 2008 @ 2:57 pm - June 23, 2008

  90. You mean, he was making excuses for promiscuous gays and explaining why gay and lesbian people shouldn’t be expected to be monogamous in marriage – because marriage is “too complex” and “black and white” rules are wrong.

    No, NDT. I meant what I said above your comment, not your gross mischaracterization of what I said.

    PSUdain explained his point, so I’m not going to repeat it.

    Even your attempt of simplifying marriage by advocating that the spouse cheated on receive carte blanche rights (which I haven’t seen advocated by anyone else here) is not so simple. What if the spouse wants to remain married? What if the spouse knew and accepted what was going on, then out of manipulation, blackmail, or lies, decides to play the carte blanche card. What if it’s happening, and everybody “knows” it but it still can’t be proved. What if both cheat? What if both cheats, but only one can prove it? What if someone was able to “prove” the spouse cheated, and the spouse did not cheat? These are just some of the things that can be played out. And this is just over monogamy or lack of it. There are so many other components of marriage. And you attempt to ridicule PSUdain, because he uses “too complex” when talking about marriage?

    See above, as in: since he’s already demonstrated that he doesn’t believe in rules or limits when they apply to promiscuous sex, why on earth should we expect his behavior to match what he claims he is? He’s already demonstrated that he will rationalize promiscuous behavior; why should we expect that he isn’t rationalizing his own?

    You’ve got to be kidding. Your mindboggling atrocious logic skills do not excuse your continued slander of PSUdain.

    Suppose, for example, we’re discussing nudity on the web, and I don’t get self-righteous and not condemn those who do post their nude pictures on the web. Does that automatically mean that I post nude pictures on the web? Anyone else with an IQ over 70 can make the distinction. Why can’t you? You better learn, because you’ll continue to slander people.

    So you expect society to punish heterosexual people for biological failures over which they have no control and the choices they make rather than to acknowledge that homosexual couples are incapable of procreation, regardless of choice and even if they are in perfect health.

    No, NDT. I don’t want to punish anyone. You are the one who wants to “punish” gay couples.

    The problem here, Pat, is that you simply cannot admit that heterosexual and homosexual couples are different when it comes to questions of why marriage exists, what it’s intended to do, and the sociological implications of it. You have been brainwashed to irrationally scream “equality” when it should be obvious to anyone that two things that are vastly different have no need to be treated “equally” and that, in fact, it makes no sense to do so.

    Um, yeah, whatever. Cut the nonsensical stuff please.

    PSUdain, for example, has argued that gay and lesbian couples are too “complex” to be bound by the “black and white” rules of traditional marriage. Instead of demanding that those rules be changed, why not simply create a new stricture that acknowledges gay and lesbian complexity. Why should you try to force couples that are obviously promiscuous, as Kevin pointed out the vast majority of gay couples are, into a structure that is based wholly on the expectation of monogamy and sexual commitment?

    Um, maybe you base your opinions on what Kevin says. I don’t.

    Heliotrope again hit the nail on the head; the problem here is that you want the redefinition of marriage more than you want the legal benefits and protections.

    Heliotrope didn’t mention me specifically. If he did, I’ll address him.

    Comment by Pat — June 23, 2008 @ 3:03 pm - June 23, 2008

  91. As for redefining marriage: at one time marriage was an exchange of property between two men — one man (the father) gave his property (his daughter) to another man (her future husband)… no longer treating women as property but as human beings with freedoms is nothing if not a radical change…

    As for same-sex marriage being the gateway to plural marriage: I see no evidence of this being the case. Allowing same-sex marriage neither helps nor hinders any argument for plural marriage.

    Agreed… great points.

    The benefits [of marriage] are not available through civil unions as shown by a study done by the New Jersey Legistlature.

    Disagree. I saw an article on that study by a gay author. Basically the difficulties came down to the fact that it was taking people (society) awhile to understand civil unions, to have forms for it, etc. That isn’t proof civil unions don’t work; only proof that you can’t change the world by fiat – it takes time.

    Given a choice between civil unions moving us slowly forward, and State or national Constitutional amendments that set us back decades resulting from a backlash because we relied on unelected judges to move us too fast, I will take civil unions every time.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2008 @ 3:05 pm - June 23, 2008

  92. I can not see any difference between “wanting” same sex marriage or plural partners or marrying a child or…….

    Heliotrope, I guess we really disagree on this point.

    Comment by Pat — June 23, 2008 @ 3:07 pm - June 23, 2008

  93. (You mean, heliotrope, that if a gay person wants marriage and family, they should marry someone of the *opposite* sex?)

    Yes. The operative word here is “wants.”

    That is awful policy. A terrible idea, that has destroyed lives.

    Our marriage tradition allows everyone the same set of rules.

    And I don’t propose to change that. Straight couples are just as free to marry as ever, under California’s new rules.

    This is not an equality issue, it is a preference issue.

    As I have said many times.

    Have we settled on scientific fact that being gay is an immutable act of nature and therefore gays are a separate class of humanity?

    We have settled on the facts that:
    - Sexual orientation goes very very deep, and is amenable to change in only a tiny number of cases, for gays and straights alike.
    - Unless the United States is a theocracy, and given that gayness isn’t “catching” and that >90% of the population will remain heterosexual, there is no rational reason for government to care what a person’s sexual orientation is.

    Our culture believes that a person should be mature enough to understand marriage and be physically advanced enough to create and care for children. We could have a moral code that accommodates a regency for such unions, but we do not.

    Smells like moral relativism. (Hence, my raised eyebrow. I am not a relativist.)

    I oppose gay marriage on the basis that no compelling state interest has been shown as to why it should exist.

    heliotrope, does not the State have a compelling interest in strengthening families? Or in providing stable environments for children? I say it does. And therefore, I support gay marriage.

    I am waiting for the compelling reason to rethink my opinion. I understand “wanting” respect, a sense of belonging, making oneself happy, meshing with the general society, etc.

    I can’t say this enough, because I’m not sure you are getting it: Those are *NOT* my reasons.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2008 @ 3:14 pm - June 23, 2008

  94. #87 Pat notes:

    Not sure what you mean by “accident,”

    It is one of Aristotle’s 13 fallacies in logic when attempting a formal argument. The old latin label is “a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid” and it has many applications.

    The “accident” of nailing infertile heterosexual married couples is based upon the false premise that reproducing is a requirement of marriage. But it does not invalidate the compelling interest in legitimizing reproduction through marriage. Obviously, ancient heterosexuals can not reproduce, yet the state permits them to marry. Equally as obvious, gays can not reproduce, ergo……the state should find a compelling reason to permit them to marry?

    It is correct that the state “overlooks” heterosexual infertility for reasons that are not clear. So, should the state “overlook” gay marriages because what is good for the heterosexual infertile couple is good for infertile gay couples?

    That is a weak argument that would need an enormous amount of work in order to make it the compelling reason to redefine marriage. Since the compelling state interest in marriage is to help organize the rules of law around the family unit, it calls the entire compelling state reason to regulate marriage into question.

    This is not an “introduction to logic” level of formal argument. But it is also not exempt from the discussion because gay marriage requires a great deal of refining of the basic questions to construct the argument. When comments run to the dozens, it is time to refine the issues and seek the core of the argument.

    I think some gays should make a concerted effort to detail why the state should regulate marriage and to be able to say why some forms are permitted and others are not.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 23, 2008 @ 3:28 pm - June 23, 2008

  95. ILC:

    With civil unions, a person can simply say “I do not recognize them” and that is the end of the discussion. The only enforcement mechanism available would be to go to court and sue, and then people will complain that the courts are forcing change even though it is legislatures that created civil unions. Civil unions are only effective if they are enforceable.

    The situation in New Jersey will be interesting because if the legislature passes a same-sex marriage bill, the governor has promised to sign it. Even though the process of gaining same-sex marriage went through the legislature, I bet there will still be backlash. But at least this time the backlash cannot be justified on not wanting courts to make new law. New Jersey’s legislature will have made the new law.

    Heliotrope:

    With respect, you are asking the wrong question. Finding a difference between wanting to marry your own sex or a child or more than one person is not the question: desires are essentially similar. Where they differ is in their enactment and their consequences.

    The question is whether allowing same-sex marriage causes harm or not. Allowing an adult to marry a child causes harm to the child. Plural marriage (from studies I have read) also causes harm to children raised in such families. But there is no evidence that a same-sex couple causes harm to the children they raise. There is a compelling state interest to making sure that children are raised in stable families. Marriage is designed to foster stable families. So unless a person believes that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to form same-sex couples and raise children, then same-sex marriage should be allowed to foster stable families for children (which I believe to be a compelling state interest).

    If a person is against same-sex marriage, they must logically be against allowing same-sex couples to adopt childen in order not to be hypocrites.

    Also, while being “in-your-face” about sexuality may be distasteful to you, it has no bearing on the rationality or logic of an argument regarding same-sex marriage. I agree that “in-your-face” is not the best tactic for winning agreement among those people governed by feelings of distaste, but the argument for same-sex marriage itself must be judged on its rationality and not on the likeability of the people who make it. I have a strong dislike of racists, but I agree with their arguments in favor of freedom of speech. When personal distaste is allowed to trump reason, all people suffer.

    Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — June 23, 2008 @ 4:29 pm - June 23, 2008

  96. Heliotrope:

    It is clear why the state overlooks infertile couples. It is important to have a mechanism in place that provides stability for families. If people exist who will make use of that mechanism, but who cannot (or choose not to) form families that is an acceptable outcome.

    But having granted this exception, the state has made it harder on itself when it comes to same-sex marriage. As with opposite-sex marriage, there will be some citizens who get married and have no intention of raising a family (the number cannot be known with any degree of precision). But unless gays and lesbians across the board are prevented from raising families, same-sex marriage must be permitted since marriage has the potential to provide such a beneficial environment for the children of such families.

    The state should regulate marriage so that it benefits children and families. But until the fact of gays and lesbians forming families and having children is proven to be harmful to society and children, there is no logical reason to prohibit same-sex marriage (and its advantages for children and families) other than bias against gays and lesbians who would benefit from the existence of same-sex marriage.

    Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — June 23, 2008 @ 4:52 pm - June 23, 2008

  97. #93 ILC, I think we have each constructed posts simultaneously and muddied the waters a bit. Let me try to take your points in #93 as they appear. The”awful policy” you refer to is limiting marriage to one partner of the opposite sex. (Right?) In the overwhelming majoritarian view that marriage is a heterosexual institution, it is only awful policy to a select few. Certainly not all gays support same sex marriage. (From my understanding, heterosexuals comprise at least 97% of the US population.)

    Limiting marriage to heterosexual couples has destroyed lives. I am regularly amazed at the number of gay men in their sixties and seventies who were married and raised families and then decided to live a life on the gay side. (I am trying to avoid the implication of “choice” or caprice here.) I know that many times, their former wives and children suffered.

    The California “rules” do not affect heterosexual marriage. That is basic logic. The California rules muddy the state concept and purpose for marriage. It is not the gays who have to redefine their view of marriage under the California rules, it is the vast majority of heterosexuals who created the marriage rules that the courts intend to alter. When two gay men are married under the California rules and face heterosexual couples with the claim that “now we are just like you,” do you really believe it will be that simple? By that, I mean, do you believe that the marriage license will immediately erase the difference of opinion?

    The United States does not have to be a theocracy to have a pro-family and pro heterosexual marriage policy. I have assiduously kept religion out of my arguments for the very reason that I do not have to rely on it and it is too easy a target for tangental spinoff arguments.

    I am unclear what is morally relativistic about: “Our culture believes that a person should be mature enough to understand marriage and be physically advanced enough to create and care for children.” Certainly, culture and mores are grounded in a moral base. But the statement is a fact about our culture. We do not permit adults to marry children. We require the age of consent to marry to be well past the age when many Americans married 150 years ago. That is all a part of our culture adopting the concept of “childhood” and “adolescence” after the beginning of the 1900′s. Cultures change. You wish the culture of marriage to change to incorporate same sex marriage. That is not moral relativism, but some of the arguments for the change may be based in moral relativism.

    The state is very interested in the family. We learn everyday how devastating our single parent welfare policy was when it ran from the mid-sixties to the mid-nineties. We have opened the doors to gay couples and single individuals to adopt children. But we are extremely subjective in determining who can adopt and who can not. That is because the state feels so compelled to stand behind the child. I have not encountered the straight teenaged adopted son of gay parents, but I have dealt with a fair number of adopted kids who had a great urge to find a biological parent. I mention this, because adopted children are often an extra challenge without being a part of a “pioneering” family on top of it all. That comment may be the source of extra discussion, but so be it.

    Your last comment seems born of frustration. I do not think you personally are motivated by seeking respect, etc. But many of the arguments posted above do boil down to that.

    Obviously, I am conservative in my views. I accept change as a regular part of the continuum. From time to time, I have to adjust to radical change that I opposed. But, when it becomes part of the status quo, as a conservative, I will see to it that does not wander astray. I would have fought the concept of Social Security. Now, I want to keep it from breaking the economy and cheating those who are heavily taxed by it. That is the way true conservatives (and capitalists) operate.

    If gays are to have gay marriage, they are either going to overthrow the existing order or they are going make the reasoning so fundamentally logical that the heterosexual majority will sweep the change through the state legislatures.

    “Wanting” and “feeling” and appeals to sympathy will not cut it.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 23, 2008 @ 5:05 pm - June 23, 2008

  98. It is one of Aristotle’s 13 fallacies in logic when attempting a formal argument. The old latin label is “a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid” and it has many applications.

    However, you ignore the fallacy of “Overwhelming exception.” One or two may be an accident, but the state ignores congenitally infertile couples, couples who have been made infertile by age, couples who have been made infertile through accident or disease, couples who are not infertile but who choose not to reproduce, couples who use contraceptive devices to not reproduce, couples who choose not to biologically reproduce but do adopt children, and couples who choose to neither reproduce nor adopt, but who instead provide foster homes.

    I think it crosses over into overwhelming exception territory there.

    But I do agree with Pat that the argument is slightly thin, because marriage is not just about children, so even if you did debunk one point, there would be others to take down.

    I also agree with ILC that the most compelling case for state interest is that of protecting children who have gay parents, so it is not without merit that child-rearing be discussed.

    Comment by PSUdain — June 23, 2008 @ 5:31 pm - June 23, 2008

  99. I would like to add, ILC, for what it’s worth, I have enjoyed reading your arguments and agree thoroughly with most of them, excepting a point or statement here or there. And the same to Brian in Brooklyn.

    One minor point of disagreement (w/ ILC) is on the efficacy of civil unions. Ignoring the obvious points of federal benefits (which are denied married gay couples, too) I would like to quote an article by Richard J. Rosendall:

    Still, it will not do to say, as some do, “What’s in a word?” The answer is: Everything. In New Jersey, a special commission reported in February that civil unions create a “second-class status.” To cite one example, self-insured companies are regulated by federal, rather than state, law, and many refuse to provide health insurance to civilly-unionized partners. By the way, isn’t it awkward talking about civil unions? Marriage requires no explanation, and thus has a built-in advantage over any alternative.

    [link]
    Not sure I completely agree with the last point, but I think he does have a point (and another commenter brought it up, too–I did read the rebuttal, but I’m still a little uncomfortable with a two-institution system).

    Also, with civil unions, are we opening up a can of worms societally? If we make civil unions an option for everyone do we discourage some people from marrying?

    I’ll admit, I’m sort of half playing devil’s advocate, and half playing to my audience with that argument. I don’t think it’s the government’s job to encourage or discourage behaviors that do not violate another person’s rights, so I don’t generally hold with such arguments.

    My biggest “thing” with civil unions is the idea of “separate but equal”, though I know that most people here disagree with the “rights” view. Even if one views marriage as a privilege (which there are significant arguments in favor of), then a mustn’t a state extend such to all couples, barring “significant state interest” against doing so?

    Given the eloquent argument ILC has made that the state has an interest in protecting children raised by gay parents, I personally feel the “significant state interest against” bar is not met.

    Comment by PSUdain — June 23, 2008 @ 5:44 pm - June 23, 2008

  100. #98 PSUdain: You may feel that you can raise Aristotle’s 13 fallacies with your own clever “overwhelming exception.” I have taught logic and rhetoric for many decades at the graduate level. It is not necessary to have a graduate degree to be ethical, logical, or sensible. But, when one pursues a fallacious argument, there are wolves in the forest (well educated lawyers, for instance) who will eat them for lunch.

    Aristotle’s 13 fallacies may seem archaic, but the number has never been altered and they remain the basis of formal argument in logic.

    Your remarks can be settled by statistics. Has the United States found itself with such high numbers of “infertile” married couples (for whatever reason) that they compromise the validity of the compelling state interest in promoting marriage between one man and one woman as the progenitors of the family? To be clear, are infertile heterosexual couples so numerous that they cancel any compelling state interest in supporting family law? Bring on the statistics. This is an easy one.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 23, 2008 @ 6:40 pm - June 23, 2008

  101. NDT: The basis of marriage is the biological, sexual bond.

    Indeed it is.

    However, the societal consequences of that biological, sexual bond are vastly different between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Hence, given that vast difference, society is perfectly justified in treating them differently.

    Furthermore, the consequences of promiscuity by both are radically different. In the case of homosexual couples, promiscuity is self-correcting; those who are promiscuous victimize only themselves and anyone else who chooses to share their promiscuity. Heterosexual promiscuity, on the other hand, produces a massive societal impact in the form of a baby — a third life that is utterly dependent on the other two and the relationship of the other two for its survival.

    THAT is the reason at its core that the state encourages marriage. Since this is not a consequence, nor can it ever under any circumstances be a consequence, of homosexual promiscuity, the state is under no obligation to intervene, nor is there any social benefit whatsoever to doing so. Gay promiscuity is a choice of both parties. It is the height of inanity to complain that you want the government out of your personal lives, then argue that the government should ratify your personal choices when it has no good reason to do so.

    Wrong answer. First of all, show me any woman over 80 and I will show you a woman who is infertile.

    Again, ILC, you are attempting to use an exception to disprove a rule.

    Instead of stacking the deck, take one heterosexual couple at random and one homosexual couple at random. Regardless of age, health, or desire, the heterosexual couple MAY be fertile — but the homosexual couple will NEVER be fertile.

    That also invalidates the argument that gay and lesbian people need marriage to protect their children. There are no such things as children born of gay and lesbian couples. There is literally no behavior in which a gay or lesbian couple could engage by themselves that would produce a child. In every case, it is a conscious choice involving parties OUTSIDE the relationship in order to get a child which the gay couple will then raise as its own.

    Furthermore, this argument is blackmail that could only come from the most foolish of narcissists. It involves a gay couple demanding that the government “fix” an environment that they claim is dangerous and hurtful for a child — after they, with full knowledge that the environment was dangerous and hurtful, put a child into it in the first place.

    My response is simple: if the environment was so dangerous and hurtful for the child, what kind of a parent are you to have brought the child into it in the first place? It’s like an unwed mother having a baby, then demanding that the government give her all the benefits that married people will receive because to do otherwise will hurt the child.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2008 @ 6:47 pm - June 23, 2008

  102. However, I draw the line at using the government to advocate my point of view.

    Then, in that case, you should be agitating to have the ban raised on polygamy, child marriage, incestuous marriages, and bestiality, because every single one of those is also “using the government to advocate your point of view”.

    Even your attempt of simplifying marriage by advocating that the spouse cheated on receive carte blanche rights (which I haven’t seen advocated by anyone else here) is not so simple. What if the spouse wants to remain married?

    They can remarry.

    What if the spouse knew and accepted what was going on, then out of manipulation, blackmail, or lies, decides to play the carte blanche card.

    We allow that already for spouses that turn in their criminal spouses.

    What if it’s happening, and everybody “knows” it but it still can’t be proved.

    Then it isn’t happening in the eyes of the law, just like any other crime.

    What if both cheat?

    Then, since there is no wronged spouse, the assets are dissolved and neither owes the other anything.

    What if both cheats, but only one can prove it?

    Then, just as in criminal law, the one who can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt loses, and the one who can’t wins.

    What if someone was able to “prove” the spouse cheated, and the spouse did not cheat?

    Again, criminal law; that’s why we have appeals.

    You know, Pat, these are all basic things that we’ve dealt with before in other forms of criminal law. Why are you suddenly acting as if they’re so insurmountable? You might as well argue that, because complicated robbery cases exist, we ignore all laws concerning robbery.

    The state should regulate marriage so that it benefits children and families. But until the fact of gays and lesbians forming families and having children is proven to be harmful to society and children, there is no logical reason to prohibit same-sex marriage (and its advantages for children and families) other than bias against gays and lesbians who would benefit from the existence of same-sex marriage.

    That’s easy, Brian.

    You have stated that it is harmful for children when their parents are not married; therefore, in order to prevent such harm, the government should allow gays to marry. However, you brought children into an environment where their parents are not married, and you did so deliberately.

    Therefore, Brian, what is obvious here is that you deliberately put children into an environment that you yourself have claimed is harmful to them. You knew you weren’t married and that such an environment was harmful to children; yet you brought children into that environment anyway.

    My biggest “thing” with civil unions is the idea of “separate but equal”, though I know that most people here disagree with the “rights” view. Even if one views marriage as a privilege (which there are significant arguments in favor of), then a mustn’t a state extend such to all couples, barring “significant state interest” against doing so?

    That ignores the fact that there are vast biological, psychological, and sociological differences between heterosexual and homosexual couples.

    Acknowledge those differences, and it makes perfect sense to have separate systems. Gays and lesbians can have a system that does not require monogamy, that treats promiscuity as normal, and that merely provides the convenience of tax breaks while allowing people to continue to engage in promiscuous behaviors. Meanwhile, heterosexuals have a system that encourages monogamy and greater responsibility, due to the fact that the consequences of heterosexual promiscuity carry far greater implications for society as a whole.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2008 @ 7:09 pm - June 23, 2008

  103. But there is no evidence that a same-sex couple causes harm to the children they raise.

    Brian, the “guidelines” used in authorizing adoption are a mish-mash at the very least. You can not support your statement, but neither would I ask you to do so.

    Adoption is not limited by willing adopters as it is by red tape. It is not necessary to add homosexual couples to the mix to increase the numbers. Therefore, I see this line of reasoning as basically moot.

    “In your face sexuality” is not a stumbling block for me. I am only pointing out that when some part of 3% of the population wants to strut their stuff in front of some large part of 97% of the population they are probably doing something counterproductive, if not stupid.

    “Heather Has Two Mommies” is a really stupid book. Heather had one mommy and her mommy’s love partner. But this book was a political treatise aimed at forcing parents, via their children, to face the “realities” of the new age.

    I mention this because the “radical” wing of the gay cause certainly has a propensity for sticking it to the establishment. Time and again the heterosexual majority is challenged with chewing more than it would ever elect to bite off.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 23, 2008 @ 7:35 pm - June 23, 2008

  104. It seems that the majority of this site’s readership is very sure of their own correctness in living. So much so, in fact, that they will state unequivically that their views are correct and should be the norm for everyone. It might be worth taking a moment to reflect, though, that we all have our own different choices to make. Some of us are Protestant, others Catholic, or Jewish. Some of us prefer to live in the Northeast, others the Southwest. I prefer monogamy. But if another couple finds that, within their unique relationship, extramarital intercourse is acceptable by both parties, far be it from me to tell them that they are wrong.

    I also would like to remark on our national heritage of the freedom of choice. I would expect that all patriots, even Gay Patriots, would be interested in our national heritage. We all have the right to dislike the choices of others. But we also have the responsibility to protect their right to make those choices.

    Comment by Dave — June 24, 2008 @ 8:13 am - June 24, 2008

  105. You know, Pat, these are all basic things that we’ve dealt with before in other forms of criminal law. Why are you suddenly acting as if they’re so insurmountable? You might as well argue that, because complicated robbery cases exist, we ignore all laws concerning robbery.

    Despite the fact that you found “solutions” to the situations I posed, still does not mean that marriage, even under your construct is not too complex. There are many other scenarios that I didn’t even mention. And also, the fact that marriage is much more than sex and monogamy. No, I never said that any of these things are insurmountable, but that still doesn’t change the fact that marriage, under any construct is indeed quite complex. I don’t know about you, but all the married couples I know are all quite different.

    Instead of stacking the deck, take one heterosexual couple at random and one homosexual couple at random. Regardless of age, health, or desire, the heterosexual couple MAY be fertile — but the homosexual couple will NEVER be fertile.

    So after telling ILC that he’s stacking the deck, you instead stack the deck your way. The simple fact is that any heterosexual couple in which at least one is sterile will NEVER be fertile. So it comes down to this. You don’t draw the line from fertile heterosexual couples to infertile heterosexual couples, but do draw the line between infertile heterosexual couples and all homosexual couples. Some of us don’t see the need to draw the line there, and have made compelling arguments to not draw the line there. Your arguments just seem like something you’re holding on to, and don’t want to give up.

    And before you or anyone says that I’m simply doing this out of selfishness. I don’t think any gay couple who wants to marry is any more selfish than any straight couple that wants to marry. Anyway, I’ve said time and again I’ll be okay whether or not I get the right (or privilege) to marry. And, whether you agree or disagree, I believe that same sex marriage will ultimately help the gay community as well as society in general.

    Heliotrope, I’m not disputing Aristotle’s fallacies. But simply citing them doesn’t make your argument correct, and mine and others incorrect. I disagree with the application of your argument. I teach mathematical logic. I can cite all the types of logical statements I want. But if I misapply them, my argument is worthless. No, I’m not saying your argument is worthless, because you are making excellent points. Perhaps it’s more of the premises that I disagree with.

    Comment by Pat — June 24, 2008 @ 9:17 am - June 24, 2008

  106. NDT:

    You have my argument backwards. What I am saying is that if gay and lesbians are allowed to adopt children, and society believes that it is best for children to be raised by parents who are married, then it is illogical for society to permit gay and lesbian couples to adopt children but not marry if that society is dedicated to the well being of children.

    If a person objects to both adoption and marriage for gay and lesbians couples, I will disagree with them, but they are being consistent in their worldview.

    Heliotrope:

    In New York City, there are hundreds of children in foster care and group homes who will never be adopted because there is a dearth of applicants. These children will just age out of the system. Red tape (at least in New York City) is part of the process, but manageable and couples are given a good deal of help (private agencies may be different — our experience is with city agencies).

    I agree that “in your face” sexual behavior is not a winning strategy. But extremes exist in all groups, and one of the prices of a free society is having to deal with the free expression of the fringes. It makes life difficult sometimes, but censorship and authoritarian measures are for me an unpalatable response.

    Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — June 24, 2008 @ 9:18 am - June 24, 2008

  107. Pat says:

    Perhaps it’s more of the premises that I disagree with.

    Aristotle’s 13 fallacies all deal with a faulty premise. You can not have a valid argument with a faulty premise.

    My reference to “accident” is based on the faulty premise that an infertile heterosexual couple somehow violates the marriage contract and therefore infertile homosexual couples should be allowed to marry on the basis that …………..? Frankly, I don’t know how to finish the argument because it is so faulty.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 24, 2008 @ 11:13 am - June 24, 2008

  108. Brian, I wish my comments were not evocative of “censorship” or being “authoritarian.” That is not my nature. I am attempting to make it clear that gays must “sell” same sex marriage to an overwhelming majority who mostly oppose the idea. I believe that gays who are sedate and keep their private lives to themselves will get a lot further in their quest for same sex marriage than if they rile up the hen house with their demands and shouting. I suppose I am promoting self censorship.

    I strongly favor civil unions. It is a way to make an exception to the marriage contract and would be hard to revoke, once instituted. Some states would never adopt civil unions, so it is not a sweeping national change. My state of Virginia seems to be opposed to them. However, I still believe they would be easier to achieve than gay marriage.

    This thread was about gay monogamy. It is dead on in its intent. If gays tried to get civil unions without the monogamy provision, they would be defeated before they began.

    I am just talking politics here and politics is all about the forces you want to overcome.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 24, 2008 @ 11:38 am - June 24, 2008

  109. You have my argument backwards.

    No, I have it exactly right. You are merely trying to spin away from the fact that your blackmail unravels when it is pointed out that you CHOSE to put children into an environment that you are now claiming is harmful and hurtful for them — because you have the choice of admitting that you did so, which calls into stark question your judgment, or admitting that the children that gay and lesbian people procure from others to raise as their own are not harmed by being put in that situation, which obliterates your “rationale” for marriage and makes your attempt to lie and blackmail straight people obvious.

    Which shall it be, Brian?

    I don’t know about you, but all the married couples I know are all quite different.

    Which means what — that the rules and definitions of marriage should be changed ad nauseum based on what the participants want, versus any sort of stable societal expectation?

    Again, Pat, you want the benefits, but you don’t want to follow the rules. You insist that sexual partners should be able to redefine marriage to be whatever they want and that society should just follow along because every relationship is “different”.

    Here we have exactly the expression of that mentality.

    But if another couple finds that, within their unique relationship, extramarital intercourse is acceptable by both parties, far be it from me to tell them that they are wrong.

    I think it should be publicized that gay and lesbian people, just as that example shows, view promiscuity and extramarital affairs as being just another “choice” in marriage and no different or worse than monogamy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2008 @ 12:14 pm - June 24, 2008

  110. Bit of a contradiction here. So many are joining the “it’s not the government’s business to force people to practice monogamy” chorus that it’s useful to contemplate whether these same people feel it’s “not the government’s business” to force people to practice racial tolerance.

    If it’s not the government’s business if an individual person is a swinger, is it any more the government’s business if an individual person is a racist? Do we not have vast bureaucracies devoted to enforcing a particular vision of racial tolerance? Do we do not allow our government to do this because “it’s for the good of society?” Is committed, monogamous marriage not also good for society?

    I suspect that with most, it’s not a matter of government intrusion into matters of individual conscience as much as it is government intrusion into matters of conscious one happens to agree or disagree with.

    Comment by V the K — June 24, 2008 @ 12:22 pm - June 24, 2008

  111. Has the United States found itself with such high numbers of “infertile” married couples (for whatever reason) that they compromise the validity of the compelling state interest in promoting marriage between one man and one woman as the progenitors of the family?

    I don’t really think this is a numbers game or statistics exercise.

    What are actually important are the all the implicit exceptions in the law to the assumed purpose of producing and raising biological children. If you keep tacking on “excepts”, especially for what you claim is a very small percentage of the population, it starts to get a bit ridiculous. As I already expressed these exceptions to the biological child purpose:

    One or two may be an accident, but the state ignores [various kinds of infertile couples], couples who are not infertile but who choose not to reproduce, couples who use contraceptive devices to not reproduce, couples who choose not to biologically reproduce but do adopt children, and couples who choose to neither reproduce nor adopt, but who instead provide foster homes.

    And while adoptive and foster parents are exceptions to your bio-child rule, I really don’t think they’re exceptions to the real societal good of providing a child with a stable, loving home.

    And we’re not only talking just the exception of infertile childless couples, either, but couples who choose not to reproduce, as well. We grant them marriage benefits, which you say are created because of the state interest in child-rearing.

    So we protect the heterosexual couple that chooses not to raise children, but not the gay one that chooses to raise children. Because the civil purpose of marriage benefits is raising children and providing them with a stable home? That’s somehow logical, in your eyes??

    Comment by PSUdain — June 24, 2008 @ 12:22 pm - June 24, 2008

  112. If you want to make it a straight-up numbers game, here they are:

    Of men 65-74, 80.9% were married, of women 55.1%. In the 75 and above category men were at 70.8% and women at 27.0%. (1995 data.)

    As a percent of the population, we have the following:
    Men 65-74 &nbsp&nbsp 23.9% &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Women 65-74 &nbsp&nbsp 28.4%
    Men 75-84 &nbsp&nbsp 14.0% &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Women 75-84 &nbsp&nbsp 21.2%
    Men 85+ &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp 3.5% &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Women 85+ &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp 9.0%

    (No 1995 data available, 1990 & 2000 data exhibit <1% difference in each, used 2000 data.)

    So by taking that data (you can check my calculations if you like), we get the following: 31.7% of men are 65+ AND married, and 23.8% of women.

    Using 2000 population data for the total number of women we get a minimum number of 33 million couples where at least one member is 65+. Now, we can agree that women over 65 are nearly all infertile due to the aging process, so we have at least 33 million infertile couples right there.

    Pretty high number considering that the absolute maximum number of possible couples is 134 million (the total number of males, which is < the number of females), meaning the actual number is lower.

    You wanted numbers, so I gave you numbers. (I know there might be some couples over 65 who still have at least one dependent child, or are raising a grandchild, but really, these numbers are so small, clearly it’s just an accident. Plus, in the grandkids case, as you’ve argued, we shouldn’t incentivize people raising children not their own.)

    Comment by PSUdain — June 24, 2008 @ 12:24 pm - June 24, 2008

  113. Bit of a contradiction here. So many are joining the “it’s not the government’s business to force people to practice monogamy” chorus that it’s useful to contemplate whether these same people feel it’s “not the government’s business” to force people to practice racial tolerance.

    Yup. A contradiction, indeed. Except… I don’t think it’s the government’s job to “force racial tolerance” anywhere but in the government itself (and by any person or organization accepting government contracts or grant money). And even there they can only enforce racially tolerant/egalitarian practices, not personal beliefs.

    Comment by PSUdain — June 24, 2008 @ 12:29 pm - June 24, 2008

  114. My reference to “accident” is based on the faulty premise that an infertile heterosexual couple somehow violates the marriage contract and therefore infertile homosexual couples should be allowed to marry on the basis that …………..? Frankly, I don’t know how to finish the argument because it is so faulty.

    Heliotrope, I agree that is a bad argument, and not one I was making.

    Again, Pat, you want the benefits, but you don’t want to follow the rules. You insist that sexual partners should be able to redefine marriage to be whatever they want and that society should just follow along because every relationship is “different”.

    Um, I never said such thing, and never meant such things. When I said that all couples are different, why did you assume I was simply talking about sex and monogamy, especially in the context of the comment I was saying that marriage isn’t only about sex and monogamy. And then you further stated I don’t want to follow the rules when, on several occasions, I’ve stated that I am monogamous, and believe that married couples should be monogamous. So I don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

    Here’s part of the problem here. You are trying to read between the lines of what I (and others who disagree with you) are saying. Newsflash, humans suck big time when it comes to reading between the lines. Newsflash 2, the worst offenders are those who claim they are experts at reading between the lines. You’re no exception here. I’m starting to think that people argue more over what’s not said than what is said.

    I think it should be publicized that gay and lesbian people, just as that example shows, view promiscuity and extramarital affairs as being just another “choice” in marriage and no different or worse than monogamy.

    Because of one’s persons view? Or your exaggerated perception of what the gay community believes? Your arguments are getting more and more desperate.

    Not only am I more than willing to follow the rules, I WANT to follow the rules. However, my willingness and want to do so, unfortunately, does not mean others will. And because others don’t, should not stop others who do want to and willing to follow the rules. Despite the fact that many heterosexual couples don’t want to follow the rules, heterosexual marriage has not been banned. And interestingly enough, there hasn’t been a push by straight or gay persons to follow your rules of marriage. Why is that?

    Comment by Pat — June 24, 2008 @ 1:00 pm - June 24, 2008

  115. ND40:

    You are still not getting my argument. When the claim is made that children are best raised by biological parents in order to oppose same-sex marriage, the person making that claim brings into play the fact that many children are not raised by their biological parents and the State does nothing to prevent this from occurring. If the State needs to prevent same-sex marriage in order to serve the best interests of children, why does this argument not hold for adoptive or step families as well?

    As far as my family is concerned, our children have gone from group homes to a stable, loving home, so the only thing I admit to is that my husband and I have improved their lives to a great extent (unless you think that a group home is a better existence for a child than living with a loving, committed couple). But like any parent I want what is best for my children, and the best is available by allowing my husband and I to have our marriage recognized by the State. To not recognize it is to punish our children who have done nothing wrong and whom the State gave to us in the first place in order to improve their lives. So unless the State argues that children placed with same-sex couples are deserving of less benefits than those with biological and/or opposite-sex couples, there is no rational reason to oppose same-sex marriage.

    But if the State believes that the best situation for children is with a married, committed couple, then they logically should allow same-sex marriage since they already allow same-sex couples to adopt children. Conversely, if the State believes that same-sex couples are unfit to be parents, they should not allow them to adopt children. But once the State allows such adoptions, it is illogical and punitive to shut those children off from any benefits that come from having married parents (that is if the State believes in doing the best for all its children). By allowing same-sex couples to adopt children, the State weakened its case against same-sex marriage if it also believes in protecting the welfare of all children and that such welfare is best served by having children raised by married couples.

    Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — June 24, 2008 @ 1:36 pm - June 24, 2008

  116. Despite the fact that many heterosexual couples don’t want to follow the rules, heterosexual marriage has not been banned.

    As I pointed out above, Pat, heterosexual marriage has value above and beyond preventing promiscuity; it also provides stability for society and a mechanism by which society can perpetuate itself. Indeed, without heterosexuality to perpetuate its practitioners, there would be no homosexuality.

    In contrast, homosexuality cannot perpetuate itself; furthermore, as we’ve seen here, homosexual marriage does nothing to prevent promiscuity like it’s claimed to do, and homosexuals themselves state that monogamy and promiscuity are completely equivalent, with the latter being just as valuable as the former.

    Because of one’s persons view?

    So let’s see; you’ve now had to use this “it’s just one person’s view” excuse for six different people — Kevin, Kene, PSUdain, Brian, Dave, and Eric Erbelding. Furthermore, as GPW pointed out in his post, he found hardly anything on a wide assortment of gay sites that would either a) promote monogamy or b) discourage promiscuity, despite all of these sites screaming about “marriage”.

    Despite what promiscuous gays tell you, Pat, there is a right and a wrong – and simply put, if you normalize promiscuity and disregard of the rules within marriage as no less than six — nearly a majority of the gays on this thread, on a conservative gay site — have done, then you are destroying the usefulness of marriage as a social institution and stable building block.

    And interestingly enough, there hasn’t been a push by straight or gay persons to follow your rules of marriage. Why is that?

    Gay people as a whole, no. But there is a TREMENDOUS upswelling in support of demanding monogamy in marriage among heterosexuals and gay people here and there who respect what marriage stands for and what sexual responsibility means.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2008 @ 1:37 pm - June 24, 2008

  117. Brian, again, you are so incalculated with liberal gay ideology that you don’t even realize the inanity of what you are saying.

    To not recognize it is to punish our children who have done nothing wrong

    The state didn’t order you to take those children, nor were you in any way compelled to do so. You petitioned the state to allow you to raise them by your choice, and the state agreed after thoroughly evaluating the situation, including (no doubt) the fact that you are unmarried.

    Now you are coming back and insisting that the state made a mistake because putting children in an environment like you provide is “punishing” them — and you are essentially trying to blackmail the state into giving you marriage to fix this “mistake”.

    Not so. If you were so concerned that those children were being “punished”, the responsible thing to do would be to not bring them into that environment in the first place. However, you made the choice to do so, and that makes your argument nothing more than the worst example of child exploitation and opportunism. YOU are the one who “punished” your children by deliberately bringing them into the environment that you did.

    It is of course most desirable that children be raised by their married, biological parents. But since the state can’t compel people who have children, i.e. single unwed mothers, to get married, it has already established that, if necessary, it will allow other situations that are less desirable to have children in them, including adoptions by gay people.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2008 @ 1:54 pm - June 24, 2008

  118. ND40:

    I am not saying that the State made a mistake at all. In fact, I think it made a wise choice. My husband and I have created a wonderful home for children who had none. I do not see how it was “punishment” to provide a loving home for our children. That is your characterization, not mine.

    All I am saying is that a fine situation can be made even better by recognizing our marriage. What rational objection can a person have to improving the lot of children?

    The State can add stability to our family by granting governmental recognition of our marriage. Why should the State be reluctant to take this additional step when it has already allowed us to adopt these children in order to improve their lot in life? What purpose is served if the State withholds additional stability from our family?

    As you note, the State cannot compel biological parents to raise the children they conceive and bear. So if the State permits gay couples to adopt these abandoned children, why wouldn’t it want to optimize the circumstances under which these children are raised (if the State considers the well-being of all children vital to society)?

    Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — June 24, 2008 @ 2:19 pm - June 24, 2008

  119. What rational objection can a person have to improving the lot of children?

    And here we see the flip.

    First Brian attempted to argue that his children were being “punished” by the state.

    Then, when it was pointed out that, if that was true, he deliberately endangered children by putting them into a situation in which they would be “punished”, he flip-flopped, trying to argue that it was NOT punishment, but that the state owed it to them to “optimize” their situation.

    Being a leftist, he doesn’t realize that he has just admitted that his children are perfectly fine without marriage.

    Hence, the state doesn’t need to “optimize” anything. If that had been the point, the state never would have allowed the adoption in the first place; it would have held off until a suitable married heterosexual couple came along.

    Furthermore, if the state is compelled to “optimize” these things through marriage, the state then should demand that all people with children be married because that would “improve the lot of children”.

    After all, what “rational objection” can people have to that?

    Bet Brian has one, though; I’m sure he’ll be happy to explain to us the position he takes in which the state should grant marriage because not doing is harmful to the children gay couples are raising, but that gay couples with children should not be forced to get married because the state has no business claiming their lack of marriage is harmful to the children they’re raising.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2008 @ 2:58 pm - June 24, 2008

  120. ND40:

    Again, you used the term punishment. I did not.

    My children and I were actually harmed when my husband had to declilne a job offering since the company would not not recognize our marriage, and therefore, would deny me inclusion in his benefits. The amount it would have cost to insure me would have negated the increase in salary my husband would have received. What could have been an economic boon for our family was thwarted.

    I have no problem with the State demanding that all couples who are raising children be married. I think it is the optimal situation and would benefit society. I do not believe in domestic partnerships. I think that they weaken society as does no-fault divorce which should also be abolished (though that will never happen since no-fault divorce is too much of a benefit for heterosexuals. You could never even get enough signatures to put it on the ballot in California, never mind hope to pass it).

    Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — June 24, 2008 @ 3:35 pm - June 24, 2008

  121. Again, you used the term punishment. I did not.

    I quote from you directly:

    To not recognize it is to punish our children who have done nothing wrong

    Next:

    My children and I were actually harmed when my husband had to declilne a job offering since the company would not not recognize our marriage, and therefore, would deny me inclusion in his benefits. The amount it would have cost to insure me would have negated the increase in salary my husband would have received. What could have been an economic boon for our family was thwarted.

    I have news for you, Brian; that is a choice that married heterosexuals face every day when they have to decide whether or not to accept new jobs that have employee-only health insurance, or when they have to decide what the most inexpensive way to cover their spouse and children is.

    Furthermore, you revert to your blackmail — “give me a raise and benefits or you’ll hurt the children that I chose to have and that I chose to put into a situation that I am now claiming is harmful because we don’t make enough money.”

    I have no problem with the State demanding that all couples who are raising children be married.

    Oh, now that is hilarious. You oppose requiring monogamy in marriage, but you support forcing all people who are raising children to be married.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2008 @ 3:55 pm - June 24, 2008

  122. Well, my partner and I are gay and we don’t want marriage or think it is appropriate to be married by the state. We are different than heterosexual couples. It is as simple as that. It’s becoming tiring to read all the proponents of gay marriage attempt to explain away such a well established tradition. I don’t feel trampled on, I’m not self-loathing, and I don’t have some psychological need to be treated ‘the same’ as everyone else. I don’t need to go to court and complain discrimination. The only discrimination is that gays and straights are different. Wake up. Take a look at who is lying in bed next to you. Roll over on them….go ahead….I bet you can’t make a child no matter how hard you try.
    Quit all your bellyaching. I am so tired of screaming complaining gays. All of you ‘out there’ gays do not speak for a large number of other gays who think you are a bunch of wackos. I don’t need to thank drag queens for where I am anymore, I don’t want ridiculous parades that make us look like a bunch of fools and perverts, and I don’t want to hang out with you ‘mainstream’ gays that are so intolerant of others’ beliefs. You couldn’t pay me to go to a gathering of gays I don’t know and live through an evening of sexual innuendos, flaming queens, and conversation that borders on sixth grade material. You are only deluding yourself if you think you are the mainstream. Didn’t you learn anything growing up? Better yet, grow up.

    Comment by Scott L. — June 24, 2008 @ 3:59 pm - June 24, 2008

  123. ND40:

    Our situation was different. The job offered more than employee-only health coverage. I was not covered because I was a same-sex spouse. Opposite-sex spouses were covered.

    I am all for monogamy so long as it is required of all people who want to be married. If heterosexuals can be non-monogamous and maintain their marriages, then same-sex couples should have the same freedom. From my experience, monogamy is better both for the couple and for the children, but the State disagrees since it allows non-monogamous marriages to continue to be recognized as marriages.

    Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — June 24, 2008 @ 4:14 pm - June 24, 2008

  124. I rest my case. However, one loose end needs to be addressed. PSUdain asks:

    So we protect the heterosexual couple that chooses not to raise children, but not the gay one that chooses to raise children. Because the civil purpose of marriage benefits is raising children and providing them with a stable home? That’s somehow logical, in your eyes??

    Again we have a premise problem. “The civil purpose of marriage benefits is raising children and providing them with a stable home.” The argument depends on the validity of that premise. The premise is not true. The marriage right is not predicated upon the successful production or adoption of children. Nor is the marriage contract in jeopardy if the married couple fail to provide a stable home. Therefore, everything that follows this false premise can not lead to a logical conclusion.

    The state recognizes marriage for very fundamental reasons. Among these are shared property and inheritance rights and rights and responsibilities concerning children.

    The culture determines whether marriage will include many mates or just one, whether same sex couples can marry, or how closely related married partners may be. The age of a partner at the time of marriage is also culturally bound.

    To change the marriage definition, you must change the culture. To change the culture, you must convince the majority that the change makes sense. Changing the culture is part politics, part finesse, part salesmanship, and huge doses of common sense.

    Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, England and Canada are under tremendous pressure to work Sharia into their legal systems. Polygamy is just around the bend for these countries if they adopt aspects of Sharia. Allowing polygamy to accommodate Sharia would be the camel’s nose under the tent of traditional marriage.

    Does anyone here believe that once Sharia and polygamy have been recognized that gay marriage is the next step? (Check the web for Sharia/gay relationships in the Netherlands.)

    On the other hand, if the state redefines marriage to include same sex couples, why would the Islamic Sharia polygamists not have an equal or perhaps better claim?

    This is about much more than just a small group of gays who want to be married.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 24, 2008 @ 5:55 pm - June 24, 2008

  125. #124: Sharia will lead to acceptance of gay marriages. Right. These “people” oppose gay breathing.

    Comment by Attmay — June 24, 2008 @ 6:23 pm - June 24, 2008

  126. Our situation was different.

    Of course, dear; we know that you believe that heterosexual couples have never had to make a decision about what job to take based on benefits coverage. But that’s neither a realistic or intelligent view.

    If heterosexuals can be non-monogamous and maintain their marriages, then same-sex couples should have the same freedom.

    As Scott so elegantly and pointedly put it, gay couples are different than straight couples. Again, your denying it does not negate the fact.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2008 @ 7:24 pm - June 24, 2008

  127. As I pointed out above, Pat, heterosexual marriage has value above and beyond preventing promiscuity; it also provides stability for society and a mechanism by which society can perpetuate itself. Indeed, without heterosexuality to perpetuate its practitioners, there would be no homosexuality.

    Thanks, NDT. Sounds like an excellent argument for same sex marriage.

    So let’s see; you’ve now had to use this “it’s just one person’s view” excuse for six different people — Kevin, Kene, PSUdain, Brian, Dave, and Eric Erbelding.

    First of all, I didn’t have to use this excuse for PSUdain or Brian, both who support monogamy in marriage. I don’t recall what Kene or Dave said about this. When I have time, I may look back and see what they said.

    By the way, have you apologized to PSUdain for your egregious slander against him yet?

    Further, I can use this “excuse” many more times. Unless six represents a majority of all gay couples.

    As Scott so elegantly and pointedly put it, gay couples are different than straight couples. Again, your denying it does not negate the fact.

    And repeating this “elegant” mantra doesn’t prove that gay couples are so different that they should be denied marriage. Again, NDT, if you and Scott feel you are so different and should be denied marriage, please, don’t get married. The rest of us will get married when we find the right person and the right time. And you can keep spouting about how different you are.

    no less than six — nearly a majority of the gays on this thread, on a conservative gay site

    Did Eric Erbelding comment on this site? And again, PSUdain and Brian support monogamy. And I haven’t checked yet to see if you mischaracterized the others yet. So much for your majority.

    Gay people as a whole, no. But there is a TREMENDOUS upswelling in support of demanding monogamy in marriage among heterosexuals and gay people here and there who respect what marriage stands for and what sexual responsibility means.

    Wow. It’s taken gay couples for heterosexuals to look at monogamy in their marriages. Interesting. We’ll see if you’re right, and with this tremendous upswelling, your solution becomes a law. In the meantime, I still haven’t seen anyone else in this thread, even those who oppose gay marriage, advocate for your solution.

    Well, my partner and I are gay and we don’t want marriage or think it is appropriate to be married by the state. We are different than heterosexual couples. It is as simple as that.

    Scott, I tell you what. If and when same sex marriage becomes legal, and if you still feel that you and your partner (if he agrees with you) are so different that you don’t deserve the privilege of getting married, then don’t get married. That should solve your problem.

    Of course, dear; we know that you believe that heterosexual couples have never had to make a decision about what job to take based on benefits coverage.

    Heterosexual married couples never had the problem of being denied the same benefits that other married couples received. All persons, gay or straight, had to make decisions on benefits. But for now, homosexual couples have a burden that married couples don’t.

    Comment by Pat — June 25, 2008 @ 10:32 am - June 25, 2008

  128. Thanks, NDT. Sounds like an excellent argument for same sex marriage.

    No, it sounds like an excellent argument for heterosexual marriage. You are making an argument akin to that, because cat food is good for cats, it must be good for dogs as well and that feeding it to dogs is good for cats. Heterosexual relationships are different than homosexual ones, and most certainly can be treated differently.

    First of all, I didn’t have to use this excuse for PSUdain or Brian, both who support monogamy in marriage.

    Correction. Neither PSUdain or Brian support monogamy in marriage. They support the definition of marriage being based solely on the sexual desires of the multiple individuals involved, with promiscuity having equal acceptance and tolerance as monogamy.

    By the way, have you apologized to PSUdain for your egregious slander against him yet?

    Let us see, Pat; both you and he insist that there is nothing wrong with promiscuity, that promiscuity should be just as acceptable as monogamy or abstinence – but you insist that a mention of promiscuity in regards to someone else is “slander”.

    Wow. It’s taken gay couples for heterosexuals to look at monogamy in their marriages. Interesting.

    Actually, Pat, the churches and religious organizations that you denounce and detest have been pushing and demanding monogamy and faithfulness in marriage for centuries. They, indeed, are the ones who came up with the concept in the first place, millenia before gay marriage was even thought about — and they have been the ones speaking out the most loudly against the sexual libertinism out of which the gay movement grew.

    The problem here, as usual, is that you are trying to tear down straight people rather than to acknowledge severe problems with gay culture that make it obvious that marriage is not an effective structure for it.

    Heterosexual married couples never had the problem of being denied the same benefits that other married couples received.

    Sure they did — when they changed companies, or when they had to make a decision over to what employer to go, just as in the case mentioned.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2008 @ 5:59 pm - June 25, 2008

  129. Once the Demographic collapse of Europe causes a profound milestone to become apparent, I believe it will quickly become a pressing Govt issue whether or not things like abortion or birth control can be restricted.

    I believe they will be.

    Comment by Vince P — June 25, 2008 @ 8:44 pm - June 25, 2008

  130. NTD says:

    Because of one’s persons view?

    So let’s see; you’ve now had to use this “it’s just one person’s view” excuse for six different people — Kevin, Kene, PSUdain, Brian, Dave, and Eric Erbelding.

    Except I have not ever supported and will not support such a position. I have explicitly said as much right here. Stop telling me what I think, stop misrepresenting me, and stop lying, you royal jackass.

    Comment by PSUdain — June 26, 2008 @ 2:31 am - June 26, 2008

  131. And as I read on, I found these gems. NDT says

    Correction. Neither PSUdain or Brian support monogamy in marriage. They support the definition of marriage being based solely on the sexual desires of the multiple individuals involved, with promiscuity having equal acceptance and tolerance as monogamy.

    [...]

    Let us see, Pat; both you and he insist that there is nothing wrong with promiscuity, that promiscuity should be just as acceptable as monogamy or abstinence – but you insist that a mention of promiscuity in regards to someone else is “slander”.

    However, in my own words:

    #37

    Actually, I may never have said so explicitly here, but I have in the past. And while I don’t like to cede ground to an online bully (more on that later), I will make it clear: I do not agree with Kevin. I think Kevin’s ideas are flawed. I think ideal marriage is monogamous, but there is room for forgiveness if cheating occurs, even repeatedly. I do not think swinging is a lifestyle I would enjoy or could ever live, nor do I think it’s a good one in general. I have certainly never called monogamy “authoritarian”.

    Clear enough?

    #38

    That might be true if I exhibited a lack of control. Or if I was promiscuous. Not that it’s any of your business. I’ve just had it with your arrogant demeanor and general inability to be civil, and I’m calling you out.
    [...]
    I am abstinent. And I will remain so until I am in a committed relationship. (Can’t say I’m waiting for marriage, as I can’t get one of those yet. At least not the kind that is most important to me—religious marriage. I’m glad the ELCA is (cautiously–we are Lutherans, after all) moving closer to having a service for same-sex couples.) And that committed relationship will be monogamous.

    The only time my name has been connected to support for non-monogamy has been in your posts.

    That leaves two basic possibilities. Either you are deliberately lying, or you have abominable reading comprehension. (Well there is a third, but that involves the statement in bold not being clear. In the future should I merely grunt and point for you?)

    Just because you say something over and over doesn’t make it true. In this case it makes you delusional.

    Lastly allow me fill you in on a general rule: If you ever find yourself saying to someone else, “You think [X],”—DON’T. You will almost certainly be wrong. Instead use, “Are you saying [X]?” That works better for creating a fruitful discussion.

    Comment by PSUdain — June 26, 2008 @ 2:58 am - June 26, 2008

  132. NDT,
    Not that I think he needs someone else to stand up and speak for him, but I am personally curious where and when Pat has denounced and expressed how he detests religious organizations:

    Actually, Pat, the churches and religious organizations that you denounce and detest [...]

    That wasn’t in this post, unless I missed it. Was it in another?

    Or are you just makin’ stuff up again, you kidder, you?

    Comment by PSUdain — June 26, 2008 @ 3:02 am - June 26, 2008

  133. [...] only to see his blog in those moments of excess. On Friday, when searching his blog for my post on gay marriage advocates and monogamy, I chanced upon two posts which showed he had retained some sense. In one, he acknowledged he was [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Return of the Sensible Sullivan? — June 26, 2008 @ 4:37 am - June 26, 2008

  134. PSUdian, I have carefully reread your comments in #15 concerning marriage and I come away feeling that you have not settled in your own mind what constitutes marriage. In fact, it would appear that you see it as unique to each set or group of partners.

    I also notice that you seem to be looking for a set of “rules” to defend or oppose.

    In short, it appears that for you, marriage would best be a ceremony in which the participants agree to their own style of commitments, followed by a period of learning to live together as well as possible.

    The fundamental Islamists can marry a partner for an afternoon of trysting and then divorce her after the orgasm by telling her so three times. I do not relish that type of marriage relativism. From reading your comments in #15, I can not see how your many thoughts on the topic would not eventually wind down a similar path.

    Either the state has a compelling interest in regulating marriage or it does not. Perhaps you might spend some time thinking through what you would permit and what you prohibit in marriage if you were justifying the compelling state interest in plain, concise terms.

    I appreciate that you do not like to have inferences ascribed to you that are not correct. Ambiguity and “musing aloud” in writing sometimes makes one to appear to be saying things he does not intend to say.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 26, 2008 @ 9:39 am - June 26, 2008

  135. Let us see, Pat; both you and he insist that there is nothing wrong with promiscuity, that promiscuity should be just as acceptable as monogamy or abstinence – but you insist that a mention of promiscuity in regards to someone else is “slander”.

    I’ve been very careful about using the term “lying” to describe your gross mischaracterization of my posts, but you continue to cross the line. Now, I can safely say you are outright lying, and I’m getting tired of your disgusting act. Please cut it out, NDT. Why can’t we disagree without the lies, namecalling, and slander?

    I have stated on several occasions that I strongly discourage promiscuity and believe married couples should be monogamous. But yet, you continue to lie about my position. I ask you again, to cut this crap out. You know I am very patient, but after all these lies, it gets quite sickening after a while.

    Oh, the slander I refer to was not that PSUdain supports promiscuity in marriage (which he also said wasn’t true), but that you stated that he was promiscuous. A lie that you repeated even after he told you that it wasn’t true. Yet, you were able to “prove” it with the logic of a cockroach.

    Correction. Neither PSUdain or Brian support monogamy in marriage. They support the definition of marriage being based solely on the sexual desires of the multiple individuals involved, with promiscuity having equal acceptance and tolerance as monogamy.

    Another lie. Keep going, you’re on a roll.

    The problem here, as usual, is that you are trying to tear down straight people rather than to acknowledge severe problems with gay culture that make it obvious that marriage is not an effective structure for it.

    No. I criticize both. You, on the other hand give churches who support anti-gay policies a free pass, and excuse their behavior by blaming the gay community. Or excuse parents who can’t accept their gay children. I have criticized the gay community on several occasions on promiscuity. I don’t mention this all the time when we discuss, because we agree on this point.

    Not that I think he needs someone else to stand up and speak for him, but I am personally curious where and when Pat has denounced and expressed how he detests religious organizations:

    Thanks, PSUdain. Actually, I’ll regard it as a half-truth, which is a step up for NDT these days.

    On other discussions we’ve had, I have criticized religious organizations for their anti-gay stances. I have also mentioned my utter dislike for persons like Robertson, Dobson, and LaBarbera, who are despicable creatures, who use their religion as an excuse for their bigotry and hate.

    The funny thing is if he has translated these criticisms to “detest.” Yet NDT’s criticisms and denunciations for the gay community far outweigh the criticisms that I have leveled on the religious community. Makes you wonder how much NDT detests the gay community.

    If NDT said I detest Dobson, et al, he would be correct, as I do. I don’t detest most religious organizations. In fact, I have colleagues who are nuns that I have the highest respect for. Most of them know I’m gay, no biggee. And some of them have criticisms about religious organizations too, without detesting them. Funny that.

    Sure they did — when they changed companies, or when they had to make a decision over to what employer to go, just as in the case mentioned.

    Any time a married couple worked for a company that offered benefits for a spouse, no married couple was ever denied these spousal benefits from THAT company. Many times a gay couple (who would have been legally married otherwise) have been denied benefits for his spouse even though the company offered benefits to workers who was married.

    I am fully aware that not all companies offer benefits for a company’s spouse. That’s not what I was talking about, no matter how many times you wish to misconstrue what I write.

    Lastly allow me fill you in on a general rule: If you ever find yourself saying to someone else, “You think [X],”—DON’T. You will almost certainly be wrong. Instead use, “Are you saying [X]?” That works better for creating a fruitful discussion.

    Good advice for you to follow, NDT. I don’t know whether or not you think you are clever in reading between the lines, but you absolutely suck at it. I mean, it’s really BAD. I’ve always said that humans are generally bad, but you are, by far, the worst at it. In fact, we see that it leads to your gross mischaracterizations, lies, and slander.

    Comment by Pat — June 26, 2008 @ 10:56 am - June 26, 2008

  136. I have stated on several occasions that I strongly discourage promiscuity and believe married couples should be monogamous. But yet, you continue to lie about my position.

    I simply point out that, while you claim to oppose promiscuity and believe in monogamy, you call criticism of those who practice the former and ditch the latter “self-righteous”.

    The problem is that I’m simply not an adherent of the belief that one’s minority status allows one to make contradictory statements without being inconsistent.

    You, on the other hand give churches who support anti-gay policies a free pass, and excuse their behavior by blaming the gay community.

    Mhm, mhm.

    Seems I charge for those free passes, and I blame them when they do stupid things.

    Problem is, in the gay community, it’s all or nothing; if you don’t blame religious people for everything, you aren’t blaming them for anything, and if you blame gay people for anything, you’re blaming them for everything.

    Makes you wonder how much NDT detests the gay community.

    Given the behaviors it supports and endorses, why shouldn’t I?

    I happen to think the unnecessary death of over 250,000 people because the gay community decided to put promiscuity ahead of responsibility is something worthy of detesting.

    I happen to think the savaging of any gay person who disagrees with the chosen gay ideology, including publishing the names and addresses of their parents and encouraging people to “make them bleed” is something worthy of detesting.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 26, 2008 @ 1:15 pm - June 26, 2008

  137. I simply point out that, while you claim to oppose promiscuity and believe in monogamy, you call criticism of those who practice the former and ditch the latter “self-righteous”.

    NDT, I do recall using the term self-righteous in this discussion. My recollection was that I used the term “self-righteous” in the sense that I don’t have to proclaim that I’m not promiscuous and criticize promiscuity every time we have a discussion of monogamy and promiscuity, and the implications of what happens when others are not monogamous.

    But whatever you interpreted, I state again that I oppose promiscuity and believe in monogamy.

    Try this in the future. If you think I’ve stated something that contradicts the above, then please feel free to ask then how that (future) statement is consistent with the above. Believe me, I’ll be happy to explain how. It’s much better to having you simply state, because you read something between the lines or misinterpreted, or whatever, that I support promiscuity and oppose monogamy.

    Seems I charge for those free passes, and I blame them when they do stupid things.

    Okay, NDT, let’s put it this way. Yes, you have on these two occasions in the past three or so years criticized two detestable individuals. Congratulations. I have laid criticism many more times against many in the gay community than you have criticized these persons or anti-gay religious organizations. Yet, that isn’t good enough. I’ll take back “free pass” and say “almost a free pass.”

    Problem is, in the gay community, it’s all or nothing; if you don’t blame religious people for everything, you aren’t blaming them for anything, and if you blame gay people for anything, you’re blaming them for everything.

    Maybe it’s the crowd you hang out with. I’ve never experienced such a thing with the gay people I know, many of which are to the left of me.

    Could it be that you simply are misinterpreting these persons? I only ask, because you’ve said the same about me in the past. Because I certainly agree with you now that it doesn’t have to be all or nothing.

    I happen to think the unnecessary death of over 250,000 people because the gay community decided to put promiscuity ahead of responsibility is something worthy of detesting.

    That’s fine, although I don’t believe it’s all of the gay community. Not sure what you mean when you just say “the gay community”?

    But I also happen to believe the fact that there are leaders such as Dobson, et al who spew hate and demonize homosexuals is something worthy of detesting. I believe that government leaders, who actually know better, who pander to the anti-gay hate are worthy of detesting, and parents, who should know better, who shun their child because they can’t accept their sexuality are worthy of sharp criticism.

    happen to think the savaging of any gay person who disagrees with the chosen gay ideology, including publishing the names and addresses of their parents and encouraging people to “make them bleed” is something worthy of detesting.

    So do I, and I stated so on several occasions.

    Comment by Pat — June 26, 2008 @ 3:04 pm - June 26, 2008

  138. Problem is, in the gay community, it’s all or nothing; if you don’t blame religious people for everything, you aren’t blaming them for anything, and if you blame gay people for anything, you’re blaming them for everything.

    I don’t know what “gay community” you’re talking about, but in addition to my involvement in the Church on campus (where I am openly gay, and accepted without reserve), I am also actively involved in several LGBT organizations on campus (where I am openly Lutheran and accepted without reserve).

    I’ve never seen a conflict between the two, nor do my friends in either set. In fact, it is often viewed as an asset by both.

    Perhaps your problem with the “gay community” is you’re doing the same thing to them/us as some “gay leftists” do to gay conservatives. Perhaps you take a few outrageous statements by a few fringes and/or deliberately misinterpret statements by non-fringe and use that brush to paint the whole thing?

    Or maybe you’re using an outdated view of the community? It would seem to be especially true with regard to the whole issue of this post, in light of that 80% figure (and other things I’ve read or seen).

    Comment by PSUdain — June 26, 2008 @ 5:32 pm - June 26, 2008

  139. How many “gay communities” are there: right, left, hidden, outed, indifferent, flaming, educated, stupid, talented, pathetic, charming, pigs, friendly, obtuse, wimpy, egotistical, got rhythm, don’t got no clue, humorous, drama bent, thoughtful, crude, lazy, honest, and a few more?

    Comment by heliotrope — June 26, 2008 @ 6:30 pm - June 26, 2008

  140. So if there’s so much diversity, and I agree there is (which is great), why does it constantly get reduced by commenters here, like NDT, to one big homogenous lump when they talk about it?

    I think your statement makes the point quite well, actually. Saying, “The ‘Gay Community’ does/thinks/says [X],” is clearly ridiculous.

    Sure one can make general statements like, “Younger gay people seem to be trending monogamous.” But to ascribe very specific beliefs and behaviours as NDT and others have done is neither accurate nor fair.

    Comment by PSUdain — June 27, 2008 @ 3:23 am - June 27, 2008

  141. (Whoops, pardon my usage of the Queen’s English for “behaviors”. I’ve moved from Douglas Adams to C.S. Lewis to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to Eric Idle recently, with only a brief break in my British authors for a collection of David Sedaris essays. So I appear to have contracted a minor case of “the brits”.)

    Comment by PSUdain — June 27, 2008 @ 3:27 am - June 27, 2008

  142. PSUdain: I have fought the chat about “the black community” and “the poor” and “orphans” my entire life. Of those three, I most cringe when the word “community” is used. Community implies a known and tacitly agreed upon social order. We should all make better use of our language. Pointing out words that are land mines is a good place to start.

    NDT’s reasoning coincides closely with my own in most cases. I will not fault him or you for scraping over the occasional word that is packed with a thousand variations of meaning. The job of rhetoric is to learn these stinker words and avoid them in civil debate. Meanwhile, I have a “community” of deer in my yard that I would like to kill. (Including Bambi.)

    Comment by heliotrope — June 27, 2008 @ 1:04 pm - June 27, 2008

  143. I can’t stand the gay pop culture…and I myself am gay! I can’t stand the whole queer eye, project runway, walking with a swish, talking effeminate. Another thing I can’t stand is gays who feel it’s their duty to be a slutty as humanly possible and sleep with as many people as they can. Marriage is NOT ONLY between a man and a woman. Marriage is a union between two couples. TWO (2) persons in an emotionally binding relationship documented on paper, that is what a marriage is.

    I applaud this article! So many Homosexual Rights Groups do not like to hear about monogamy because most of their chairperson’s (at least to my experience) feel they do not need to be monogamous. Want equal marriage rights? Then stop being slutty hoes and give our demographic the equal respect it deserves.

    Comment by Andt — January 26, 2009 @ 3:33 pm - January 26, 2009

  144. [...] Gay Groups Ignore Monogamy when Promoting Marriage [...]

    Pingback by Government Promoted Marriage Has Nothing to do With Sex or “Love” « AmeriCAN-DO Attitude — April 9, 2009 @ 5:31 pm - April 9, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.