If you’re referring to his namecalling of V the K, that’s in post 36; if you’re referring to his support of calling his fellow Marines murderers, baby-killers, and “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”, that is in post 17 and 18 and again in 58 and 59.

Actually, NDT, I was referring to your slander of Mac. It’s bad enough that people (on both sides here) feel the need to name call. But I would hope that you could admit that the slander in post 52 was way over the line.

you reference a quote where I equated calling someoen self-hating with the lack of anyone on this site expressing any concern about some of the vile things commentors have said about anyone who does not share their politics

But then:

Instead of admitting it, the fact that I don’t say something is now your proof.

So in other words, you can use the lack of saying something as “proof”, but no one else can. Furthermore, you can claim that the lack of saying something is equivalent to hateful speech, while insisting that your lack of saying something is not.

Actually, no; I’m the person pointing out that the capability of procreation makes opposite-sex marriage distinctly different and more beneficial for society than same-sex couplings.

Divorce and blended families are like putting wallpaper over a hole in sheetrock; it covers the hole adequately, but it is not a substitute for a solid and permanent wall, nor should it be considered as equal to one. It should be seen as what it is, which is trying to make the best of a bad situation. No one should ever deliberately set out to divorce and remarry, nor should the government encourage it.

NDT you are shameless and/or stupid, you reference a quote where I equated calling someoen self-hating with the lack of anyone on this site expressing any concern about some of the vile things commentors have said about anyone who does not share their politics.

HDT, you need to defend the issue of divorce, blended families, etc. because you are stating that marriage is solely for the means of maintining society.

gay folk are seeking marriage, for the personal reasons of declaring their committment to each other, seeking the benefits given to all married folk, and working on building their own families.

Love makes a family. . .

In case you hadn’t noticed, the reason the first Arizona constitutional amendment didn’t pass was because it abolished domestic partnerships for older couples — who were AVOIDING getting married because doing so would increase their tax bill, jeopardize their pensions, and lower their Social Security.

Society already penalizes older people who get married.

Isn’t it amusing to watch gays like rusty who insist that gay marriage is necessary for gay couples to successfully raise children suddenly argue that gay couples are already raising children successfully WITHOUT marriage?

Pick one. Either the lack of marriage is harmful for these children, which means that gay parents deliberately are putting children into a relationship that is harmful for children, or that marriage is irrelevant to whether or not gay couples can raise children successfully. No more using children as hostages.

Better question: why should government encourage people to divorce the biological parent of their children or to have children out of wedlock and as a single parent? All of those things have been shown to be detrimental to children; should the government encourage behavior that is detrimental to children out of the belief that adults should always be rewarded regardless of their choices?

The fact that the government does not encourage any of those things does not mean those children are less valuable; it simply means that the adults in the relationship have decided to put their sexual and personal needs ahead of the children involved, and quite often to the child’s detriment.

it seems that you are doing a large disservice to all those GLBT families raising children quite successfully, be it those children were placed through adoption programs, foster care programs, were blended because of previous relationships or entered the family through artificial insemination.

Ah, but you see, rusty, you’ve argued that gay and lesbian people CAN’T raise children successfully without marriage. Will you now admit that gay and lesbian parents have been wholly unsuccessful and have in fact injured their children by bringing them into a situation where their parents are unmarried, or will you admit that gay and lesbian parents don’t need to be married to successfully raise children?

based on those statements, please clarify how children of blended families where stepparents step forward and become either primary or even adoptive parents are to be perceived? Are those children less likely to be of benefit to society?

based on those statements, please clarify how children born to parents who do not marry or one of the parents is absent, either through abadonment, unwilling to accept parental responsibilities or through death, how are these children able to become valuable assets to society?

and finally, if procreation is a standard of marriage, and the marriage results in divorce, how are those children to become valuable assets to society?

it seems that you are doing a large disservice to all those GLBT families raising children quite successfully, be it those children were placed through adoption programs, foster care programs, were blended because of previous relationships or entered the family through artificial insemination.

In fact, you do a large disservice to all families who are raising adoptive children, foster children and even children who were conceived through artificial insemination by insisting that procreation is a standard of marriage.

and finally, with your idea of marriage including the standard of procreation, how will society acknowledge seniors seeking a second lifepartner because one or both persons lost there first love to an accident or early death?

Post-menopausal women don’t make up the majority of the population.

Again, this all boils down to this fact; not all heterosexual couples are fertile, but there are zero fertile gay couples. Gay couples cannot produce children without extensive artificial intervention, and the children produced will not be biologically related to both of the members of the couple.

The ultimate question is whether marriage is ultimately for the benefit of the adults or of the children. Society has stated unequivocally over time that it exists primarily for the children and for the perpetuation of society through children. That is why gay unions have never been equivalent to marriage throughout history; children are simply not part of the equation in the vast majority of gay couplings.

So, no, I am not impressed in the slightest by what you see as “clear evidence of progress.” To me, the double talk of the Republican Party reveals just as much animus to all gay people–liberal or conservative–as the ex-gay movement.

Don’t you love it when liberal gays complain about nasty blog comments?

Don’t you love it when liberal gays complain about nasty blog comments while ignoring the fact that their party and their supporters are making death threats over the public airwaves?

Actually, there are churches that take very strong actions against divorce.

That’s good to know. Like the gay marriage issue, there are always exceptions. But most churches will not take the same strong stand against divorce as they so eagerly will against homosexuality. If they did, they would chase away more than half of their congregation.

As I challenged brendan in that post and now in this one, if he wants to whine and point fingers about namecalling and homophobia, he can do it to his own supporters and to his own party. But unfortunately, he’s not interested in confronting namecalling or homophobia; he’s simply here to bash gay Republicans and conservatives.