Gay Patriot Header Image

Defining Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage as Hate Speech

Why do some gay marriage advocates refuse to argue with supporters of the traditional definition of marriage, and instead label them as haters.*  Fifteen years ago, maybe even ten, only a handful of people in this country would think that marriage referred to anything but a monogamous union between one man and one woman.

That includes some people with otherwise “spotless” (in the eyes of liberal gay groups) records on gay issues.  Many of those include champions of state recognition of same-sex civil unions (and other pro-gay legislation), just so long as they’re not called marriage.

Even Barack Obama has defended social conservatives who favor the traditional definition of marriage.  Heck, he favors such a definition himself.

A reader e-mailed me an article which showed how politicized, how politically correct, our discussion of same-sex marriage has become. Jonathan Lopez, a student at Los Angeles City College, says a “professor called him a ‘fascist bastard’ and refused to let him finish his speech against same-sex marriage during a public speaking class last November, weeks after California voters approved the ban on such unions.

When Lopez complained, the professor threatened to have him expelled. That student is suing.

Instead of responding to the student with argument, the professor responded with ad hominem attacks. Not a very good education in public speaking in my view.

It wasn’t just the professor. Two students were “‘deeply offended'” by Lopez’s address, one of whom stated that “‘this student should have to pay some price for preaching hate in the classroom.’” Now, if Lopez used inflammatory language, he would certainly have demonstrated himself to be a poor public speaker and an immature young man. And he may well have been preaching hate.

If, however, Lopez merely made the case for the traditional definition of marriage, that can only be defined as hate if you believe it hateful to hold that sexual difference can define a social institution. It seems, alas, that some advocates of gay marriage, define all opposition to their cause as hateful, even when the opposition is based on a longstanding definition of an ancient institution.

As I’ve said so many times on this blog, it’s long past time for advocates of same-sex marriage to stop badmouthing their adversaries and to start making the case for the social change they seek. And it’s time for the leaders of that movement to denounce the mean-spirited rhetoric of those, like Mr. Lopez’s professor, who would rather insult than argue.

*To be sure, some supporters of that traditional definition can be called haters, but not all, not even most.

Share

373 Comments

  1. I’ll tell you why – because the ‘traditional definition’ argument is self-discrediting. Certainly, marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, but the ‘traditional definition’ of marriage has also included any number of outrageous behaviors that gay marriage opponents seemingly have no problem discarding. What about arranged marriage? What about dowries? What about harems? What about stoning adulterers to death? What about women being forever relegated to domestic, child-rearing near-slavery? What about the fact that a black person couldn’t marry a white person in quite a few states until the 1960s?

    All of those things were traditional at one point. All of those things have been considered by some population on the planet at some point in history ‘the norm.’ Which serves to prove that there is no traditional definition of marriage, that marriage evolves like the rest of humanity evolves. The definition of marriage has changed before and it will change again. It has meant different things to different people in different times.

    That much should be obvious to anyone. The ‘traditional definition of marriage’ argument is totally arbitrary and unjustifiable, and anyone who would employ it has obviously not spent very much time thinking about it seriously. But that plays a lot better than simply admitting you hate gays because the Bible tells you to.

    [Um, Levi, do you ever read my posts or just come up with your reactions based on what you assumed I said? I mean, the very title of the post deals with how certain gay marriage advocates label their ideological adversaries, calling them haters. So, please, what does anything you have said have to do with that?

    And to claim that the traditional definition of marriage is arbitrary and unjustifiable is to ignore a few thousand years of human social history. Yeah, marriage does evolve, but please, find me an example, prior to the 1990s, of a culture which did not define marriage by sexual difference. Even in cultures which allowed polygamy, the man was married to each of his wives, but none of them to each other. –Dan]

    Comment by Levi — February 17, 2009 @ 3:01 am - February 17, 2009

  2. Actually Levi,

    You are the one who has obviously not spent much time (any time?) thinking about marriage. If you had thought about the restrictions on marriage, rather than just ejaculating a cliched, knee-jerk emotional response, you would realize that ALL the restrictions on marriage have one thing in common….

    same sex couples are not allowed to marry for the same reasons groups are not allowed to marry, children are not allowed to marry, and blood relatives are not allowed to marry.

    All these restrictions exist because, despite the fact that YOU haven’t thought about it, marriage serves a purpose to society that those arrangements cannot fulfill. And no, the purpose is not validating “love”.

    Ironically, it is YOU who is proposing the definition of marriage that would be completely arbitrary and unjustifiable. According to you marriage should exist so adults who love each other can get government goodies — but only SOME people who love each other. And you would discriminate against other people who love eachother (say blood relatives and groups) for entirely arbitrary reasons.

    Traditional marriage, on the other hand, is a logical, systematic construct designed to get men and women legally bound to each other in pairs before they reproduce, so that children are born into the protection of legally binding relationships between their mother and father.

    All of which is demonstrably good for society. (Just look at the state of the black community where 70% of children are born out of wedlock for proof)

    But you never bothered to consider what is good for society, your only concern is with yourself.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 3:40 am - February 17, 2009

  3. Dan,

    I’m glad someone else emailed that to you. I meant to but never got around to it. I’m also glad that student is suing.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 3:42 am - February 17, 2009

  4. Elephant – How is what I wrote a knee-jerk, emotional response? Did you read anything I wrote?

    My only concern is with myself? What?

    Comment by Levi — February 17, 2009 @ 3:49 am - February 17, 2009

  5. The ‘traditional definition of marriage’ argument is totally arbitrary and unjustifiable, and anyone who would employ it has obviously not spent very much time thinking about it seriously. But that plays a lot better than simply admitting you hate gays because the Bible tells you to.

    Sounds pretty emotional, irrational and knee jerk to me.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 4:24 am - February 17, 2009

  6. Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…

    Trackback by Anonymous — February 17, 2009 @ 4:57 am - February 17, 2009

  7. it’s long past time for advocates of same-sex marriage to stop badmouthing their adversaries and to start making the case for the social change they seek.

    As Maynard G. Krebbs alsways said: WORK?!?!

    Why work when you can piss & moan and bug the shit out of everybody until they capitulate to your demands?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 17, 2009 @ 6:09 am - February 17, 2009

  8. Elephant wrote . . . “Traditional marriage, on the other hand, is a logical, systematic construct designed to get men and women legally bound to each other in pairs before they reproduce, so that children are born into the protection of legally binding relationships between their mother and father.”

    I totally agree.

    Therefore, no marriage should be allowed if the couple cannot produce children.

    Thus, no marriage for people over the age of 30 (OK, maybe 40). No marriage for women who had hysterectomy. No marriage for any man who had a vasectomy. (And, if these events should occur after the marriage, then that marriage is no longer valid.)

    A good idea would be to test each man and woman prior to marriage in order to ensure that the woman produces viable eggs, and the man potent semen.

    I agree so much with Elephant, that I think that once a couple has passed their productive child bearing years, then that marriage should be automatically dissolved.

    After all, the only purpose of marriage is to create future generations of know nothings just like Elephant.

    Comment by Continuum — February 17, 2009 @ 7:41 am - February 17, 2009

  9. Well said, AE.

    In answer to Dan’s question, the left labels opposition as “hate” because they are intellectually incapable (or just plain too lazy) to construct intellectual arguments to support their position. By claiming the other side is motivated by “hate,” they seek to dismiss or discredit any opposing viewpoint.

    There’s also some projection involved. The gay left hates C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-s and conservatives, and so they project their own hate onto us.

    Comment by V the K — February 17, 2009 @ 7:52 am - February 17, 2009

  10. I support legal recognition of lifelong, sexually exclusive, same-sex partnerships. I don’t think same-sex partnerships should be called marriage. Same-sex love has a different dynamic than heterosexual love. Same-sex love is stronger, more longlasting, and more loyal than heterosexuality, if we take our examples from history (before Stonewall) instead of buying into the multi-partner mess the gay community wants us to believe is normative today.

    I think homosexuals should celebrate their ability to form fiercely loyal relationships based on such models as Achilles and Patroclus or Sergius and Bacchus. Our relationships are freely chosen out of friendship, without the expectation of children (though some go on to choose that) or the joining together of families. Our partnerships are singular and independent. Therefore, I, along with Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, etc. think of same-sex love as purer than heterosexual love. I think that we are better than mere marriage, and that trying for the same type of relationship as straights is setting our sights too low.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — February 17, 2009 @ 10:16 am - February 17, 2009

  11. Why do some gay marriage advocates refuse to argue with supporters of the traditional definition of marriage, and instead label them as haters.*

    Self-answering question. The advocates you’re talking about don’t want to argue; they want to label. On an emotional level, their interest is in (perceived, emotional) revenge, in throwing tantrums, etc. You could ask why they’re interested in revenge and tantrums, but then we’re getting farther into the fields of psychology, philosophy, morality, etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 10:26 am - February 17, 2009

  12. The definition of marriage has changed before and it will change again.

    I can agree with Levi on that. It’s just a fact.

    The ‘traditional definition of marriage’ argument is totally arbitrary and unjustifiable

    Whoops, he had me then he lost me. Just because the details of who can be married, how and why have changed before and will changed again, does not me they serve no valuable, logical purpose.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 10:27 am - February 17, 2009

  13. same sex couples are not allowed to marry for the same reasons groups are not allowed to marry, children are not allowed to marry, and blood relatives are not allowed to marry.

    No, AE. Same-sex couples have not been allowed to marry, for *different* reasons than that groups are not, incestuous couples are not, etc. Obviously. Same-sex couples were not allowed because they were same-sex, groups were not allowed because they were groups, etc. Come on, you can do better.

    marriage serves a purpose to society that those arrangements cannot fulfill

    The purpose of State-licensed marriage in today’s society is this: for 2 grownups who are not already a family, and not already married to anyone else, to declare/make themselves a new family.

    The couple may well have kids, and a further purpose or object of State-licensed marriage is clearly to provide security and legitimacy for the kids. But the couple won’t necessarily have kids; in fact, the State quite often marries couples who clearly cannot have kids. Meanwhile, gay couples can have kids: the gay couple may have them from a previous marriage, or by adoption, or by the techniques that are commonly utilized to have new kids by infertile straight couples.

    So marriage has 2 key social purposes, The first one I mentioned can’t be fulfilled by groups or by incestuous couples. But yes, it can be fulfilled by unrelated gay couples – and so can the second.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 10:33 am - February 17, 2009

  14. The truth is a bitter pill ain’t it? You conservagays love to paint all liberals with the same brush, so why shouldn’t you guys be painted exactly the same way? You know the old saying if it quacks like a duck and swims like a duck then it must be a duck.

    Comment by DaveA — February 17, 2009 @ 10:36 am - February 17, 2009

  15. I too saw both the story and Bill O’Reilly’s interview with the lawyer that Lopez retained to sue both the professor and LACC. This whole mess (instigated by the professor, let’s not forget) is a preview of what the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” will do if it is ever enacted.

    As for myself, if I were Lopez I’d be doing the same thing but harder and faster. Challenge the professor, belittle him and indicate that he’s a red diaper doper baby. Tit for tat. Fight fire with fire.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 17, 2009 @ 10:37 am - February 17, 2009

  16. #12 – You are not worth the response.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 17, 2009 @ 10:38 am - February 17, 2009

  17. Traditional marriage, on the other hand, is a logical, systematic construct designed to get men and women legally bound to each other in pairs before they reproduce, so that children are born into the protection of legally binding relationships between their mother and father.

    And also to make sure that the pair were of the ‘correct’ race, ‘correct’ class, ‘correct’ family background or clan alliance, etc. We today have discarded those latter considerations. Also, we today apparently (or effectively) do not care, *as a society*, about binding people *before* they reproduce. Society changes, and the definition of marriage with it. It’s just a fact.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 10:41 am - February 17, 2009

  18. As for Lopez: It would be interesting to know exactly what he said. The LA Times article does not, in the end, suggest he said anything hateful. It repeats some of the frothing and foaming of his fellow students, but with nothing to back it up. Still, we won’t know until we know.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 10:45 am - February 17, 2009

  19. I think homosexuals should celebrate their ability to form fiercely loyal relationships based on such models as Achilles and Patroclus or Sergius and Bacchus.

    Or Harmodius and Aristogeiton. Amen!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 10:51 am - February 17, 2009

  20. Well duh.

    The “traditional definition of marriage” routine = “because that’s the way it’s always been” and the intent is to discourage any further discussion. It’s like the “majority of people don’t agree with gay marriage” argument, which = “there’s more of us and so if we want you to have less rights, we don’t need a reason other than it’s what we want.” This was the same argument used to support segregation and Jim Crow, and eventually, the law caught up with the stupidity.

    In actual legal, constitutional terms, both arguments are losers. It doesn’t matter if “traditionally” marriage referred to a male-female union; that has nothing to do with law, and anyone using the “traditional” definition of marriage as the bulwark of their argument is arguing a losing case.

    [Um, then, Jennifer, since it’s such a losing argument, why can’t that who oppose it take it apart without insulting those putting it forward? Why do they resort to ad hominem attacks which is, uh, the point of this post to which you have attached your comment. –Dan]

    Comment by Jennifer — February 17, 2009 @ 10:53 am - February 17, 2009

  21. #16 – Don’t forget Alexander the Great and Hephaistion.

    PS – I wonder if the fascist professor at LACC would have been predisposed to calling a student names if they had quoted the definition of marriage from the Koran instead of the Bible. Bet you a dollar to a donut he wouldn’t have.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 17, 2009 @ 10:59 am - February 17, 2009

  22. This incident is one example of the left trying to rush concensus on this issue. Nowadays, it’s totally out of bounds to say blacks can’t marry whites. Well the left wants that same “not fit for discussion” to apply to gays marrying. A letter writer about 2 months ago in USA Today said as such. America is not at that point yet.

    Comment by Jimbo — February 17, 2009 @ 11:08 am - February 17, 2009

  23. Ashpenaz

    Your argument doesn’t wash. In fact, homosexual couples have an astonishingly higher “domestic violence” rate than heterosexual couples, homosexual murders are 70% more likely to be committed by a homosexual partner than a “hate crime” incident.

    AE said it very well; marriage is a social construct with a clear purpose — NOT a symbolic declaration of Love, faithfulness, Good feelings, Companionship, etc. The social construct of Marriage provides the best known environment within which children should be raised. The data is clear and unequivocal: children are healthier, happier, better adjusted to adult society when they have an intact family home with a mother and a father. This is the purpose of marriage.

    Comment by suze — February 17, 2009 @ 11:19 am - February 17, 2009

  24. Suze offers: “The data is clear and unequivocal: children are healthier, happier, better adjusted to adult society when they have an intact family home with a mother and a father.”

    Well, suze, I’d be happy to put my three sons up against any set of kids in our community and they’ll do quite well not having had a female in our home. Of course the stats show your “fact” AT THIS POINT IN TIME… but open up adoption for stable gay families and lets check the stats in 10 yrs.

    It’s kind of like saying that kids who have breakfast or access to Touch IPods or laptops are more likely to excel in school… but those aren’t the real reasons they excel in school (good parents, strong educational values in home, high expectation for grades, study, college entry, etc). That kind of thinking and link of outcomes with observable indices led govt liberals in the last few years to handout laptop PCs to troubled, struggling youth because it would raise educational ratings… and it’s led to a costly social service program of having the state step in and feed young kids breakfast where parents are failing the task. The reasons above have little to do with educational success and more to do with employing stats to make a point.

    I know from personal experience –both in our family and being well acquainted with what happens in other gay families– that what matters isn’t the sex of the parents… it’s the quality of parenting.

    Quality of parenting –not sexual composition of parental unit– is what matters in developing well adjusted, stable kids. Sometimes statistics can be bent to the will of the debater… and this is one of those cases.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 17, 2009 @ 12:01 pm - February 17, 2009

  25. Gays should have the very same rights as straights, no ifs, ands or buts.

    With the help of our State Supreme Court, gays will have the same rights.

    What will the right wing do then? Clutch their pearls, faint, get the vapors & hit the op-ed & letters to the editor big time.

    That’s what I’m looking forward to….reading all the haters who think it’s their god given right to hate & cast other members of society into some burning lake of fire.

    Comment by kindness — February 17, 2009 @ 12:01 pm - February 17, 2009

  26. Suze….you list all sorts of statistics but it’s clear to me you are either 1) using statistics from sources who did not do peer reviewed studies or 2) pulling statistics out of your ass.

    I’m going with 2. Why don’t you link to some of these studies you speak of?

    Comment by kindness — February 17, 2009 @ 12:05 pm - February 17, 2009

  27. such hatred from a guy with the name ‘kindness’

    And he doesn’t even see the irony. Or the fact that he has the same rights as those ‘straights’ he hates so much.

    Even adDave admitted that point.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 17, 2009 @ 12:34 pm - February 17, 2009

  28. Thanks, DaveA kindess, for vividly demonstrating the blind, cliched hatred from the left that this post was talking about. You offer no affirmative advocacy of same sex marriage, just the same tired old insults at those who oppose it.

    Comment by V the K — February 17, 2009 @ 12:40 pm - February 17, 2009

  29. Sorry, must not have gone through. I posted the data, and the citations. For your reading, here are just the citations, “kindness”:

    ↑ 2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada’s National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005
    ↑ http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50
    ↑ http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50
    ↑ Nursing Clinics of North America 2004 Jun;39(2):403
    ↑ New York Times, Silence Ending About Abuse in Gay Relationships by By JOHN LELAND, November 6, 2000
    ↑ New York Times, Silence Ending About Abuse in Gay Relationships by By JOHN LELAND, November 6, 2000
    ↑ Gay Domestic Violence Finally Measured, Journal of the Family Research Institute, Vol. 16 No. 8, Dec 2001
    ↑ A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample, The Journal of Family Violence, Publisher Springer Netherlands, Volume 15, Number 3, September, 2000, Pages 281-293. ISSN 0885-7482
    ↑ National Center for PTSD Fact Sheet

    Comment by suze — February 17, 2009 @ 12:49 pm - February 17, 2009

  30. AE at 2:

    Traditional marriage, on the other hand, is a logical, systematic construct designed to get men and women legally bound to each other in pairs before they reproduce, so that children are born into the protection of legally binding relationships between their mother and father.

    That was true, more or less, at one point in our past. But it is demonstrably not true today. “Legally binding?” No. Ever heard of no-fault divorce? It allows you to unilaterally dissolve your marriage at will, and it is the law. What’s more, gays aren’t responsible for the no-fault divorce statutes; those statutes are a straight contrivance.

    Today, state-sanctioned marriage is a benefit-laden affirmation of a couple’s love and happiness, for as long as their love and happiness last. When their happiness turns to misery — as it does at least half the time — the couple is at legal liberty to go their separate ways, without reference to either the needs of their children or the interests of society.

    [Is it, Paul? Who has defined it as such? But, you’ve got a point there, a good one, in that law has eroded the meaning of marriage. And that is unfortunate. –Dan]

    You’re not arguing for a tradition, AE. You’re arguing for a memory.

    Comment by Paul — February 17, 2009 @ 12:55 pm - February 17, 2009

  31. Michigan Matt – I appreciate your view, and I agree with you on one thing. It really is the quality of parenting efforts that will determine a child’s success. And, I see parenting failures all the time in heterosexual couples even those with all of the advantages of wealth, education, and social connection. Unfortunately all we have at the moment is data, to see general trends. And that data shows that the family unit – as “traditionally” defined is the best environment. In 10 years, we may very well have new data to look at. I think (and I’ve seen this here before) it’s the radical left gay agnda that is actually hurting the cause; noone would want to give adoption rights to some of the violent, rabid haters that come out in discussions like these.

    Comment by suze — February 17, 2009 @ 12:56 pm - February 17, 2009

  32. “The social construct of Marriage provides the best known environment within which children should be raised. The data is clear and unequivocal: children are healthier, happier, better adjusted to adult society when they have an intact family home with a mother and a father. This is the purpose of marriage.”

    Fine. As other people have said, childless couples, women beyond child bearing age, and all other marriages not made expressly for the raising of children should be outlawed as well. It’s pretty simple really. Unfortunately for the “stable family home” supporters, marriage also has a host of other issues tied to it, including property rights, visitation rights, even protection in criminal courts from having to offer various forms of testimony. So we may as well strip away all of those benefits as well. The traditional marriage people have fit themselves into a very small intellectual box. As it stands, I choose the Constitution and the guarantee of equal protection under the law. All of you same sex marriage supporters can go on hating the foundation of what made this country great.

    Comment by Dot — February 17, 2009 @ 12:57 pm - February 17, 2009

  33. And he may well have been preaching hate.

    If, however…

    Nice straw man.

    What is it with conservative that they have to invent things to argue for or against?

    You have no idea what this student presented in his speech. It was enough to get an experienced professor as well as two students rather riled up. He could have been saying hateful things about homosexuals, which for some reason you gloss over and assume that because he was defending traditional marriage that he must have been arguing in good faith. (Really, can’t you just learn to love the big gay homo that you are?)

    But here you are defending a student without having any idea what he was saying.

    Intellectual rigor? Not so much.

    Comment by t4toby — February 17, 2009 @ 1:06 pm - February 17, 2009

  34. Oh fer f*ck’s sake. STFU about the arguments over marriage. That’s not what this post was about. This post was about victimiization. It’s about whining. It’s about “Thank you sir may I have another?:”

    “IF he merely…” Well that premise is falsified in the previous paragraph! Typical unthinking “conservative” post: take a hypothetical situation (which is shown to be unjustified as a precis by your very words in the post) as an opportunity to loathe yourself some more.

    In short, get down off the cross girl, we need the wood.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 17, 2009 @ 1:10 pm - February 17, 2009

  35. Why can’t gay relationships be “separate but better?” I still don’t see why the heterosexual model has to be what we shoot for when our relationships historically have been much better and more interesting.

    Add to the list Ashpenaz and Daniel, btw.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — February 17, 2009 @ 1:31 pm - February 17, 2009

  36. You’re not arguing for a tradition, AE. You’re arguing for a memory.

    Quite the contrary. He is arguing for a definition of marriage that provides the optimum benefit to society. It took decades to degrade marriage to a grab-bag of social benefits, and it may take even longer to restore marriage to its proper place. But it is a battle worth fighting.

    Comment by V the K — February 17, 2009 @ 1:39 pm - February 17, 2009

  37. here is some interesting info from rebeldad dot com

    and interesting take on the gender bending and remodel of the ‘traditional’

    Comment by rusty — February 17, 2009 @ 1:40 pm - February 17, 2009

  38. And also to make sure that the pair were of the ‘correct’ race, ‘correct’ class, ‘correct’ family background or clan alliance, etc.

    As for race, you know as well as I do that the same Supreme Court that struck down anti-miscegenation laws as unconstitutional also rejected arguments that prohibiting same-sex marriage was similar. And talk about canards, no court has ever struck down laws dealing with class, background or clan — BECAUSE THEY NEVER EXISTED.

    Ridiculous red herrings.

    Also, we today apparently (or effectively) do not care, *as a society*, about binding people *before* they reproduce.

    We dont? And your evidence for such is that we no longer force people to marry before reproducing? Except of course, we never did that either.

    Perhaps a great many people dont care. But the law exists to encourage it — not because I say so, but because the legislatures say so. And anyone who doesn’t care about getting people to marry before they reproduce is personally complicit in the devastation that out of wedlock birth has caused the black community.

    And what a truly pathetic argument for gay marriage! “The definition should change because no one cares what marriage if for anymore”

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 1:44 pm - February 17, 2009

  39. You have no idea what this student presented in his speech.

    Yes, we do. Read the LA Times article that GPW linked. It’s true that we don’t *know* what he said, as I pointed out up at #18. But you just set the bar lower: whether or not we have an idea of what he said. Again, read the article. Whatever he said, (1) it wasn’t bad enough for the LA Times reporter to cite it in support of the students who complained about him; and (2) the university’s over-reacted was bad enough for them now to be seriously worried about the lawsuit they’re facing. As the LA Times puts it:

    The Los Angeles Community College District… said it deemed Lopez’s complaint “extremely serious in nature” and had launched a private disciplinary process [against the professor].

    That should give you, certainly not knowledge, but “an idea”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 1:56 pm - February 17, 2009

  40. I totally agree.

    Therefore, no marriage should be allowed if the couple cannot produce children.

    Ah yes, the insipid “two people of the same sex cannot in any circumstances ever ever ever ever EVER reproduce with eachother, THEREFORE the state must prevent the two sexes that can reproduce from marrying unless they PROVE they are actually going to have children first” argument.

    By that logic, because we prohibit the young and blind from driving, the state should require all adults to PROVE they own a car and will without exception WILL drive it before issuing them a drivers license.

    The problem with your stupid argument — and it really is stupid — is that people who “cant have children” often do, and people who don’t want children often have them anyway, or change their minds.

    If we follow your idiotic prescription, more children will be born out of wedlock, but the more men and the more women we encourage to marry, the more children will be born into wedlock.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 1:58 pm - February 17, 2009

  41. Dan,

    Filtered again.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 1:59 pm - February 17, 2009

  42. I don’t understand how gay marriage would have any effect on straight marriage. Straight marriage has changed so many times in the USA in the last 200 years that it’s hard to put your finger on what “traditional” marraige might be. Polygamy in Utah, polygamy abolished in Utah, polygamy quietly permitted again, divorce prohibited, fault-based divorce, no fault divorce, common law marriage recognized, common law marriage abolished, ages of consent for marriage ranging from 14 to 18 and beyond, decriminalization of adultery, decriminalization of cohabitation, marriage of first cousins permitted, marriage of first cousins prohibited, women as chattel, women as persons, miscegenation laws abolished, breach of promise laws abolished (yes, it used to be illegal for a man to break an engagement), marriage as a defense to rape, marriage an option but not a requirement for respectability, etc., etc.. None of that was in any way driven by gay marriage. And that’s just the USA in 200 years.

    Maybe we mean the biblical model of of “traditional” marriage. But which one? Jacob marries two non-Jewish sisters and has sex with the maids as well? Solomon with 700 wives and 300 concubines? It’s a sin to marry your sister-in-law. Or it’s maybe its required. Divorced women are prohibited from remarrying. Or maybe not. And Jesus hanging out with the guys, and not really interested in chicks? What’s up with that?

    Or worldwide? Polyandry and polygyny (think Tibet)? Child marriage? Female genital mutilation as a prerequisite for marriage? Honor killings of errant or disobedient wives? All traditional somewhere, even today. But gay marriage doesn’t seem to be having an effect on any of it.

    So why would gay marriage suddenly have an influence on the constant evolution of straight marriage in any way? I’ve asked a lot of straight married people, and they all say that gay marriage has had no effect on their marriages. Some even live in Massachusetts where the gay marriage rays must be the strongest, and one couple just across the border in Rhode Island where the gay marriage rays are still pretty strong. But no, they are still happily married. Will someone explain the cause and effect to me?

    Comment by Korregidor — February 17, 2009 @ 2:08 pm - February 17, 2009

  43. No, AE. Same-sex couples have not been allowed to marry, for *different* reasons than that groups are not, incestuous couples are not, etc. Obviously. Same-sex couples were not allowed because they were same-sex, groups were not allowed because they were groups, etc. Come on, you can do better.

    Actually, they are all prohibited from marrying because they dont fit the formula society and biology has developed to ensure the best environment for reproduction and child rearing. Gays cant reproduce, incestuous couples shouldnt reproduce as they are likely to produce birth defects, and it doesnt take a group to reproduce, it only takes one man and one woman.

    They are all prohibited from marrying because marriage’s function to society lies in reproduction and child rearing.

    The purpose of State-licensed marriage in today’s society is this: for 2 grownups who are not already a family, and not already married to anyone else, to declare/make themselves a new family.

    According to you and only you.

    But unfortunately for you, the United States is not a dictatorship and ILC doesn’t get to pull his own definition of marriage out of his ass and declare it law.

    My definition, unlike yours, has the benefit of being the official stated intent of the legislatures, reaffirmed by the courts.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 2:13 pm - February 17, 2009

  44. Suze (#29),

    The American College of Pediatrics is a rump group that left the American Academy of Pediatrics precisely because they oppose same-sex parenting. Citing them as an authority is problematic at best and disingenuous at worst.

    Comment by Tracy — February 17, 2009 @ 2:21 pm - February 17, 2009

  45. V the K at 36:

    Quite the contrary. He is arguing for a definition of marriage that provides the optimum benefit to society.

    Well, that may be. But it doesn’t exist, not as a matter of law, not as a matter of cultural practical, not in America, not today. And we have no reason to think it’s likely to exist in the future. For starters, you’d have to repeal no-fault divorce statutes. Good luck with that. (You might even subject adultery to criminal sanction. Even better luck with that.)

    Whatever marriage once was, and whatever the benefits of “traditional” marriage to either children or society, our legal and cultural understanding of marriage has changed. It is today a public affirmation of the love between two adults. Accordingly, we have no good reason for excluding gay adults.

    [If that’s the case, then, state legislatures should respond by changing their jurisdictions’ definition of the institution. But, I believe, that for gay marriage to have any meaning, the definition must be more than a public affirmation of love. — Dan]

    Comment by Paul — February 17, 2009 @ 2:22 pm - February 17, 2009

  46. According to you and only you.

    Nope. According to State-licensed marriage as it actually exists in the United States today. Again: The State licenses couples that clearly cannot produce children, all the time. My description of marriage’s purpose in today’s world comes far nearer to the truth, than yours.

    My definition, unlike yours, has the benefit of being the official stated intent of the legislatures, reaffirmed by the courts.

    Again wrong in fact. See previous comments.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 2:23 pm - February 17, 2009

  47. Gays cant reproduce

    Once again, wrong in fact.

    Gays reproduce all the time – again, using the same techniques as infertile straight couple. A gay couple is, reproductively speaking, the same as an infertile straight couple.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 2:24 pm - February 17, 2009

  48. Following up on my last comment – the linked article, although a few years old, notes that the American College of Pediatrics had exactly one employee and an unknown number of members.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics, which is the actual professional group, has, by comparison, over 60,000 members and about 350 employees.

    Comment by Tracy — February 17, 2009 @ 2:26 pm - February 17, 2009

  49. Said link…

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/31/beliefs_drive_research_agenda_of_new_think_tanks/

    Comment by Tracy — February 17, 2009 @ 2:27 pm - February 17, 2009

  50. That was true, more or less, at one point in our past. But it is demonstrably not true today.

    Actually, it is demonstrably TRUE today:

    “The legislature was entitled to believe that
    limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State’s legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children.” ~ Anderson v. King County, SCOWA

    The fact that YOU think procreation and child rearing are no longer a legitimate interest of the state does not make it so, it only makes you silly.

    Today, state-sanctioned marriage is a benefit-laden affirmation of a couple’s love and happiness, for as long as their love and happiness last.

    And that you believe the state has a legitimate interest in affirming love takes you well beyond silly and deep into ridiculous.

    Please cite any statute from ANYWHERE that declares such a moronic purpose for the institution of marriage.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 2:33 pm - February 17, 2009

  51. ILC

    You are simply in delusional denial. Please show me any case from ANYWHERE in the world throughout all of human history where a man produced an egg or a woman produced a sperm.

    One sperm and one egg are required to reproduce. Men make the former, women make the latter.

    Gays CANNOT reproduce with each other, they can reproduce with people of the opposite sex ONLY.

    Geez Louise, get a grip.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 2:37 pm - February 17, 2009

  52. We Heteros don’t need any help from you Homos. Destroying the sanctity of marriage and the family unit is an inside job, and we got it covered.

    Comment by Patrick — February 17, 2009 @ 2:41 pm - February 17, 2009

  53. Yeah, Paul, way to deliberately ignore the second half of my comment that utterly negates your pablum.

    Comment by V the K — February 17, 2009 @ 2:46 pm - February 17, 2009

  54. Hey, elephant.

    You know that women can be gay too, right? And that there are all kinds of fertilization options open to them?

    Or are you so rooted in the 1950’s that you haven’t heard of these new fangled techniques?

    I’m afraid it is you who needs to ‘get a grip’.

    Comment by t4toby — February 17, 2009 @ 2:46 pm - February 17, 2009

  55. So, let’s summarize. I made a number of points, but lately I re-iterated these key ones:

    The State licenses couples that clearly cannot produce children, all the time. [going to the question of marriage’s modern-day purpose]

    Gays reproduce all the time – again, using the same techniques as infertile straight couple. A gay couple is, reproductively speaking, the same as an infertile straight couple.

    What did AE respond with? Personal invective. LOL 🙂

    Plus an irrelevancy or two; for example, this:

    One sperm and one egg are required to reproduce…

    Is of course obvious, and is equally applicable to the infertile straight couple, thus not undermining what I said in the least. Infertile straight couples have children by techniques such as artificial insemination, surrogate mother, or adoption. Gay couples do likewise, with the same results (i.e., very real children, related *genetically* to either 0 or 1 of the parents).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 2:47 pm - February 17, 2009

  56. I thought we were all working from the same basic definition that “gay” = “same sex”. Apparently ILC is working from a different dictionary, where “gay” = “opposite sex”

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 2:48 pm - February 17, 2009

  57. P.S. To be explicit: #49 is a declaration of victory, on my part. Who resorts to personal invective, instead of making arguments that are reasoned *and relevant* (or not already incorporated in the other guy’s points), is the argument’s loser. As for this:

    ILC is working from a different dictionary, where “gay” = “opposite sex”

    Nope. Wrong again.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 2:52 pm - February 17, 2009

  58. Toby and ILC,

    And SINGLE women can have children by artificial insemination TOO!

    By your asinine logic, we should allow them to marry THEMSELVES!

    Sorry, make asinine arguments, I’m going to call them asinine.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 2:57 pm - February 17, 2009

  59. Hell,

    By ILC’s logic, people can reproduce with their PETS! After all, the children would be

    very real children, related *genetically* to either 0 or 1 of the “parents”

    Hence, we must allow bestial marriage.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 3:03 pm - February 17, 2009

  60. As I don’t hang around here, I went over to AE’s place to see if he(?) is as obtuse as he seems. And what'[s at the top of the page?

    “Defending Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”

    Yeah. Right, then. Well, not so much. Two words for ya, AE: cognitive dissonance.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 17, 2009 @ 3:42 pm - February 17, 2009

  61. same sex couples are not allowed to marry for the same reasons groups are not allowed to marry, children are not allowed to marry, and blood relatives are not allowed to marry.

    It’s difficult not to ad hominem someone as dense as you are.

    “children are not allowed to marry.” And why is that? Because they aren’t old enough to sign a legally-binding contract, not for whatever reason you claim.

    Likewise “blood relatives.” Some states allow first cousins to marry. Others don’t.

    The sooner you all stop pretending that the (flexible, to say the least) definition of marriage is some sort of big holy deal that has lasted unchanged since the dawn of time, the sooner you all will be able to start dealing w/ the real world.

    Comment by M. Bouffant — February 17, 2009 @ 3:50 pm - February 17, 2009

  62. Two words you apparently don’t understand, Pee — nor, if you think there is anything inconsistent about my position, do you understand the words life, liberty or pursuit.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 3:51 pm - February 17, 2009

  63. Thanks for covering this.

    I would like to clarify one point: Many in the media are misreporting the topic of Jonathan’s speech. They (including the LA Times) are calling it an “(anti-)’gay’ marriage speech.” It wasn’t. His was an informative speech about how God has changed his life through His Word. He did mention marriage, but only as a peripheral issue. And as you see below, he didn’t use any Bible verses that touched on marriage at all. Of course, I can speculate as to why some MSM outlets would want to distract from the real issue…

    These are the verses Jonathan used in his cut-off speech:

    Romans 10:9 — because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

    Matthew 22:37-38 — And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment.

    See also:

    http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/LopezEvaluationSheet.pdf

    http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/LopezFactSheet.pdf

    http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4823

    http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1234851253.shtml

    http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2009/02/16/ask_god_what_your_grade_is

    Comment by Greg Scott — February 17, 2009 @ 3:51 pm - February 17, 2009

  64. All one needs to do is read the comments from “outraged” liberals in this post to reinforce Dan’s point.

    I’m against abortions, but that doesn’t make me a woman-hater.

    I’m for guns, but that doesn’t make me a crime-lover.

    The Gays (TM) have tried to villify everyone who crosses them to the point of ridiculousness.

    They are clownish at this point.

    Good post, Dan!

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — February 17, 2009 @ 3:55 pm - February 17, 2009

  65. Ah, Elephant, let’s see your definitions of those words.

    Better idea? Try a dictionary. That way you can’t weasel out of your elephant poop.

    Comment by M. Bouffant — February 17, 2009 @ 3:56 pm - February 17, 2009

  66. Bouuffant,

    No, Children aren’t allowed to marry because they aren’t old enough to consent to SEX. Parents are allowed to make all sorts of legal arrangements for their kids, but they arent allowed to marry their kids off because sex is an inherent condition of marriage.

    Unlike you, I am actually familiar with the statutes, the legal arguments, and the court decisions.

    The sooner YOU stop arguing that marriage is defined by arbitrary popular attitudes and not thoughtful considerations of law and the purpose the institution serves to society, the sooner YOU will be able to start dealing with the real world.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 3:58 pm - February 17, 2009

  67. Most of the comments from anyone on this thread who isn’t a self-loathing gay person (or closet case) have to do w/ your ridiculous definitions & attitudes towards marriage, none of which have the benefit of thirty seconds of rational thought.

    Since most of you have already had your minds made up for you by religious teaching/indoctrination (Please do not confuse their little minds w/ any facts.) there’s little point to attempting a reasoned discussion.

    Comment by M. Bouffant — February 17, 2009 @ 4:05 pm - February 17, 2009

  68. No, Children aren’t allowed to marry because they aren’t old enough to consent to SEX.

    Had to capitalize “S-E-X,” did you? That’s wide open for comment.

    But … You’re full of it. Compare ages of consent, ages at which children can marry (w/ & w/o parental consent, etc.

    Noting that, of course, that it all varies from state to state, just like the first cousins question.

    Comment by M. Bouffant — February 17, 2009 @ 4:12 pm - February 17, 2009

  69. Dana Parsons of the LA times:

    ‘Milk’ takes him back to a different Orange County
    http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-parsons17-2009feb17,0,1544305.column

    –Frank Ricchiazzi, an early member of a group of gay Republicans who became the Log Cabin Club, remembers those days well. “Before Briggs,” Ricchiazzi says, “there were no politically organized groups in the state of California. John Briggs is the reason we have gay political groups because up until that time, everyone was so closeted, so fearful, there was no concept.”

    Because of its overwhelmingly white population in those days, Ricchiazzi says, Orange County was perceived by outsiders as intolerant of minority groups. Though there were elements of truth in that, he says, the county’s libertarian streak accounted for more tolerance than was generally believed.

    “There were clearly problems regarding gays in this county in certain areas,” he says. “No doubt about that. This is why you had the haven of gay people in Laguna Beach.”

    Ricchiazzi remembers being so afraid of job reprisals that he wouldn’t sign his name to a $10 check in support of gay causes. He paid everything in cash, he says.

    Though he doesn’t attempt to account for every last bigot now or in the future, Ricchiazzi says the days of what used to be called gay-bashing in Orange County are largely a thing of the past.

    “We’re now at a point if you’ve got a gay in the neighborhood,” he says, laughing, “than your property values are going to increase because you know they’re going to take care of their property.” —

    As many realtors and property owners consistently espouse: Gay folk are great rentors, help build up the neigborhood when they become home owners and usually hold the best neighborhood holiday/block party. HECK, they even help out with the PTA and school events when they have kids in the local school.

    Comment by rusty — February 17, 2009 @ 4:12 pm - February 17, 2009

  70. Whattaya mean they Bruce? On second thought, I retract that purely rhetorical question as I have no wish to be associated with the likes of you.

    I remember Stonewall. I worked for decades to build a social environment where you can publically identify as gay without being afraid of physical harm. All for what – so you can villify me and those who came before you. Fuck that noise. Is that a persona you don or are you in fact a nasty little shit with zero appreciation for what so many people worked so hard, many of whom suffered tremendously. Grow up you ungrateful self-important blowhard.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 17, 2009 @ 4:13 pm - February 17, 2009

  71. By ILC’s logic, people can reproduce with their PETS!

    Nope. Wrong again.

    AE, you’re making this way too easy! I don’t even have to explain why your claims are absurd and desperate; they so obviously are.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 4:17 pm - February 17, 2009

  72. Bouffant,

    Thank you for illustrating the point of the original post so perfectly! Yet more proof that people such as yourself dont give a crap about what marriage is or why it is important, you only want it to validate your own insecurities, and therefore anyone who opposes gay marriage either hates you or themselves. Childishly insipid.

    Most of the comments from anyone on this thread who isn’t a self-loathing gay person (or closet case) have to do w/ your ridiculous definitions & attitudes towards marriage, none of which have the benefit of thirty seconds of rational thought.

    Actually Bouffant, the definitions I am working from are established by the legislatures, and affirmed by the courts and based in biology, not religion.

    Unlike your position, which amounts to “I want it, gimmie gimmie gimmie,’ they are the product of a great deal of thought. Easily far more than you’ve ever given the issue. And unlike you, thought for more than just self.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 4:20 pm - February 17, 2009

  73. ILC,

    The only one making desperate, ridiculous arguments is the one arguing men can make babies together. That’s you bud.

    Its not my fault that your definition of reproduction applies EXACTLY equally to people and their pets, its yours!

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 4:25 pm - February 17, 2009

  74. Yet more proof that people such as yourself dont give a crap about what marriage is or why it is important, you only want it to validate your own insecurities, and therefore anyone who opposes gay marriage either hates you or themselves. Childishly insipid.

    As pointed out way upthread, “traditional definition of marriage” = “that’s the way it’s always been so just shut up and deal with it.” It’s not an argument – it’s an attempt to shut it down.

    [No, Jennifer, it’s not an attempt to shut argument down. That’s the argument they make, so address it, tell us why it no longer works. ]

    You’re free to not agree with the idea of allowing same-sex couples to marry, but legally, according to the US Constitution, if you’re going to deny the legal rights of marriage to same-sex couples, then you have to make a case as to how you would be MATERIALLY damaged by the extension of these rights to everyone. Arguments based on “traditional” definitions, why your personal religious beliefs should get more succor from the law than actual living citizens, or the “ick” factor you may personally feel towards the idea of a same-sex couple having the same legal rights as you aren’t going to cut it.

    [So, it’s the defenders of the traditional definition who have to justify themselves? Why don’t those who seek to change the long-standing definition of this ancient institution need make the case for the social change they advocate? For that it is the entire point of this post–that gay marriage advocates need advocate for gay marriage, make an argument rather than insult their opponents.]

    So, get down to showing some hard facts and evidence about how you personally will suffer irreparable physical or financial harm if everyone is treated equally under the law, and you might have something of interest to say. Otherwise, it’s all just more caterwauling about how it’s not fair that you don’t get to be king of the world and force everyone to live by your standards.

    [How about you getting to some hard facts and showing why gay marriage is a good thing; you’re the one pushing social change. If it’s a good social change, you should easily be able to defend it. -Dan]

    Comment by Jennifer — February 17, 2009 @ 4:33 pm - February 17, 2009

  75. the one arguing men can make babies together. That’s you bud.

    Nope. Wrong again. I never argued that, in the sense you mean. For the record, I did say things like the followings:

    Infertile straight couples have children by techniques such as artificial insemination, surrogate mother, or adoption. Gay couples do likewise, with the same results (i.e., very real children, related *genetically* to either 0 or 1 of the parents).

    Which are true. AE, again, keep it up man! 😉 I don’t even have to explain anymore why your claims are absurd and desperate; they so obviously are.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 4:34 pm - February 17, 2009

  76. But AE, one other thing – You need to use more personal invective. It’s been a couple comments since you’ve done that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 4:36 pm - February 17, 2009

  77. I worked for decades to build a social environment where you can publically identify as gay without being afraid of physical harm. All for what – so you can villify me and those who came before you.

    LOL! It only took “PeeJ” a couple of hours to go from accusing others of whining about victimhood to whining about his own victimhood.

    Comment by V the K — February 17, 2009 @ 4:38 pm - February 17, 2009

  78. Get down to showing some hard facts and evidence about how you personally will suffer irreparable physical or financial harm if everyone is treated equally under the law.

    A null argument, since there is no way gays can demonstrate irreparable physical or financial harm from being given domestic partnerships instead of marriage. Everyone is equal under current law in terms of being able to marry one adult partner of the opposite sex. It’s gay activists who want to make the law unequal by privileging one type of non-traditional attraction over others.

    Comment by V the K — February 17, 2009 @ 4:41 pm - February 17, 2009

  79. LOL the kids these days don’t wtf “whining” means. Not surprising as they typically (V something K being awesomely typical) don’t know diddly squat. Come back when you’ve finished high school, punk.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 17, 2009 @ 4:47 pm - February 17, 2009

  80. Since American Elephant seems to believe that human and animals can be cross-bred, is it safe to assume his/her screen name should be taken literally?

    And anyone who doesn’t care about getting people to marry before they reproduce is personally complicit in the devastation that out of wedlock birth has caused the black community.

    I’d like you to meet The Palins. They’ll be fascinated to learn they’re black.

    Comment by SomeNYGuy — February 17, 2009 @ 4:54 pm - February 17, 2009

  81. How does it not bother you that the people you call comrades explicitly believe you to be inferior and undeserving of the same rights as everyone else?

    Comment by Nimrod Gently — February 17, 2009 @ 4:58 pm - February 17, 2009

  82. Dan at 45:

    If that’s the case, then, state legislatures should respond by changing their jurisdictions’ definition of the institution. But, I believe, that for gay marriage to have any meaning, the definition must be more than a public affirmation of love. — Dan

    The states have changed the definition of the institution. Most of them did it in the 1970s. That’s when no-fault divorce statutes were widely adopted.

    Why allow couples to divorce at will, with no showing of cause or fault, unless their personal happiness is a principal, if not chief, aim of marriage?

    Back when marriage served societal interests, we didn’t let couples divorce in the absence of compelling circumstances. Why? Because we didn’t care if they were unhappy. It wasn’t about their happiness. Today, as a matter of both law and cultural practice, marriage is about your happiness. Ask Elizabeth Taylor. 🙂

    Comment by Paul — February 17, 2009 @ 5:00 pm - February 17, 2009

  83. ILC,

    This is why I don’t respond to you. You’re dishonest.

    the one arguing men can make babies together. That’s you bud.

    Nope. Wrong again. I never argued that, in the sense you mean.

    Yet thats exactly what you said.

    Gays cant reproduce

    Once again, wrong in fact.

    Gays reproduce all the time – again, using the same techniques as infertile straight couple.

    You are trying to argue that gays can reproduce because ONE of them can reproduce with a third party of the opposite sex — in other words gay couples can reproduce because they can have heterosexual sex or otherwise obtain the reproductive cell of the opposite sex.

    The EXACT same thing can be said of a person and their PET!

    Infertile straight couples have children by techniques such as artificial insemination, surrogate mother, or adoption. BESTIAL couples can do likewise, with the same results (i.e., very real children, related *genetically* to either 0 or 1 of the parents).

    You can reproduce with another man the exact same way you can reproduce with your dog — by employing the aid of a female human in a relationship that has absolutely NOTHING to do with your gay or animal partner.

    Your asinine definition of reproduction, not mine.

    But AE, one other thing – You need to use more personal invective. It’s been a couple comments since you’ve done that.

    My you do play the vicitm…. allow me to get my teeny tiny little violin….when Im done reproducing with it.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 5:06 pm - February 17, 2009

  84. Ah, Dan. Good to see you’re still sticking up for people like Jonathan Lopez who think you’re sub-human in at least two ways (gay and Jewish). Chickens for Colonel Sanders. Good stuff!

    Comment by Rusty Shackleford — February 17, 2009 @ 5:08 pm - February 17, 2009

  85. […] Defining Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage as Hate Speech […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » So, Leftist Outrage Confirms Conservative Hate Speech? — February 17, 2009 @ 5:09 pm - February 17, 2009

  86. Um, Rusty, did you read my post? Sticking up for Jonathan Lopez? Am I? How do you know he thinks I’m sub-human (hating both gays and Jews)? Where’s your evidence for that?

    Just because someone opposes same-sex marriage doesn’t mean they think we’re sub-human. Please note your own readiness to label him, helping make the point of my post.

    The assumptions you make . . . and your fellow leftists accuse us of making assumptions. . . .

    The point of the post was not to stick up for him, but to take to task those who would call him a hater for his views, just as you call him subhuman.

    The point of the post was to call for civil discourse of same-sex marriage, a point I’ve been making for quite some time.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 17, 2009 @ 5:15 pm - February 17, 2009

  87. V the K – that may be perhaps the dumbest argument I’ve every seen. Everyone is not equal under current law in that current law disallows two individuals of the same sex from entering into what is among the most routine of contract agreements. The law needs to have some reason other than the naughty bits of each party for prohibiting what is essentially a private contractual agreement between two individuals. We don’t prohibit business mergers because the CEOs have the same eye color, we don’t determine who can buy or sell a house to whom based on race, and we don’t determine who can hire whom based on gender. Why? Because as far as the law is concerned, none of those things are pertinent to the contract agreement. It’s the same with the marriage contract – the law has no compelling interest in denying a same-sex couple access to making the same type of contract opposite-sex couples enter into on a daily basis.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 17, 2009 @ 5:17 pm - February 17, 2009

  88. Everyone is equal under current law in terms of being able to marry one adult partner of the opposite sex. It’s gay activists who want to make the law unequal by privileging one type of non-traditional attraction over others.

    The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

    ANATOLE FRANCE, The Red Lily

    Comment by Righteous Bubba — February 17, 2009 @ 5:20 pm - February 17, 2009

  89. Jennifer,

    You’re free to not agree with the idea of allowing same-sex couples to marry, but legally, according to the US Constitution, if you’re going to deny the legal rights of marriage to same-sex couples, then you have to make a case as to how you would be MATERIALLY damaged by the extension of these rights to everyone.

    The courts disagree with you. Even the CA and MA courts don’t agree with you, they made their decisions based on STATE law, not the Constitution.

    The question of gay marriage as a right has been appealed to and rejected on the merits by the United States Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson.

    That’s it. Case closed. There is NO right to gay marriage. Period. Zero. Nada. Nil. End of Story. That is the Constitutional law of the land.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 5:23 pm - February 17, 2009

  90. You’re right, Dan. Chances are a kid who describes himself as “a Christian who considers it a religious duty to share his beliefs, particularly with other students” and gives a pro-Prop. 8 speech in class probably thinks being gay and being Jewish are perfectly okay and won’t condemn you to burn for eternity in a lake of fire.

    My bad.

    Comment by Rusty Shackleford — February 17, 2009 @ 5:36 pm - February 17, 2009

  91. Gentlemen, ladies, PeeJ,

    ILC, AE, please go to your corners, cool off, then when the bell rings, you can come back to the middle of the ring and beat the hell out of each other again.

    To the newer names I’m seeing here, for marriage to be the universal right so many claim, you have to explain why a man can’t marry 2 women, or two boys, or his pet, or a cartoon character. Hint, you can’t claim ‘consent’ as the issue as you’re declaring marriage a ‘right’ and rights can’t be denied people.

    Even one of our more frequent liberal posters has conceded that he’s not been denied any rights. See Here http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=8598#comment-369032

    So let me save you time. That battle’s been fought, and lost.

    Now, as to the privilege of state recognition of partnerships, via marriage, that is the purview of the states. They can set age of consent, blood test limits etc. If you want to lobby to change something (because the onerous is on the change, not the status quo) knock yourself out. But don’t be surprised when you get slapped down, hard, if the society is not willing to change. I personally believe it needs to be done via the legislature, others believe it’s by any means. Since court overreach have ran into an 0-30 record society seems to disagree.

    Also for those fans of the living constitution and the courts, I’d point out if there was any consistency in that point of view, (besides the consistency of ‘I wear a cool black robe and with a wave of my Gavel, I can make law! Like Dumbledore, but with a lifetime appointment’) then you’d have to admit the court MUST support DOMA as there’s a nationwide consensus, the same ‘logic’ they used overturning the juvenile death penalty law in Louisanna.

    *DING* we now return you to your ILC/AE boxing match, popcorn can be bought in the lobby.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 17, 2009 @ 5:37 pm - February 17, 2009

  92. Livewire, for the record, I’ve been cool.

    1) I have not resorted to personal invective.
    2) I have tried to engage the arguments of someone who disagrees with me – only to see him misrepresent mine.

    OK? Clear?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 5:42 pm - February 17, 2009

  93. Now, as to the privilege of state recognition of partnerships, via marriage, that is the purview of the states. They can set age of consent, blood test limits etc. If you want to lobby to change something (because the onerous is on the change, not the status quo) knock yourself out. But don’t be surprised when you get slapped down, hard, if the society is not willing to change. I personally believe it needs to be done via the legislature, others believe it’s by any means.

    Speaking as a gay marriage supporter, I agree with the above and have made similar points on this blog, many times.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 5:45 pm - February 17, 2009

  94. You’re dishonest.

    Ah, there it is! That’s the personal invective we all expect from you, AE. And of course, your misrepresentations of those with whom you disagree.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 5:48 pm - February 17, 2009

  95. The states have changed the definition of the institution. Most of them did it in the 1970s. That’s when no-fault divorce statutes were widely adopted.

    Sorry, that’s not changing the definition of the institution any more than requiring all passengers to enter in the front and exit in the back changes the definition of what constitutes a “bus”.

    Back when marriage served societal interests

    If you dont think marriage still serves societal interests, I invite you to visit the black community where poverty, crime, illiteracy, dropouts, etc all mirror the 70% out of wedlock birth rate.

    And if marriage indeed serves no societal interest, then society should stop subsidizing it. Fortunately it still very much does.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 5:48 pm - February 17, 2009

  96. If you dont think marriage still serves societal interests, I invite you to visit the black community where poverty, crime, illiteracy, dropouts, etc all mirror the 70% out of wedlock birth rate.

    Don’t forget to say hello to the Palins while you’re there.

    Comment by SomeNYGuy — February 17, 2009 @ 5:51 pm - February 17, 2009

  97. ILC,

    I quoted you EXACTLY — word for word — as everyone can see for themselves. And as ALWAYS, when you get caught making an asinine argument, you try to pretend you didnt say what you said.

    You’re such a sleazy liar.

    As I said the last time you did this, you have no integrity whatsoever.

    Youve only proven me right.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 5:57 pm - February 17, 2009

  98. Won’t somebody shoot the rogue elephant and put it out of its misery?

    Comment by SomeNYGuy — February 17, 2009 @ 6:01 pm - February 17, 2009

  99. re-read #69

    and then tell me that this dear man should be denied the opportunity to marry the person of his choice and should be denied the opportunity to create and raise the family of his choice.

    Comment by rusty — February 17, 2009 @ 6:01 pm - February 17, 2009

  100. Because they’re haters. HTH.

    Comment by Dr Zen — February 17, 2009 @ 6:03 pm - February 17, 2009

  101. “Even in cultures which allowed polygamy, the man was married to each of his wives, but none of them to each other.”

    LOLOLOLOLOL. Polygamy = traditional because no gayness was going on?

    “Our relationships are freely chosen out of friendship, without the expectation of children”

    OMG, you pretend gays are cracking me up. I didn’t “expect” children when I got married and I wouldn’t have had to get married to have them. Man, what twisted minds you haters have.

    “Nowadays, it’s totally out of bounds to say blacks can’t marry whites.”

    You realise that blacks didn’t just sit back and accept the hate, right?

    Comment by Dr Zen — February 17, 2009 @ 6:11 pm - February 17, 2009

  102. on, Dr. Zen, Dr. Zen, Dr. Zen, do you even know why I brought up the points about polygamy?

    It was to point out (in response to another comment) that while societal understanding of marriage has evolved over time, that institution has always been defined by gender difference.

    So, please respond to that argument.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 17, 2009 @ 6:20 pm - February 17, 2009

  103. That’s it. Case closed.

    Yes, that’s what they said about the Dred Scott decision.

    In law, the case is never closed, particularly when it’s a case about denying one group rights and priveliges that are extended to everyone else. And the law always eventually catches up, as it will in this case too, because the law has no interest regarding the genitalia of individuals entering into a legal contract with one another. Nor do you, for that matter, other than your own notions of what other people should and should not be allowed to do, which is why you will ultimately lose.

    You’ve yet to advance one single, solitary interest the law has in denying to this one particular group the option to enter into a contract that’s open to others. I didn’t expect you to, because there isn’t a legal interest in doing so. Which again, is why you will ultimately lose.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 17, 2009 @ 6:25 pm - February 17, 2009

  104. I quoted you EXACTLY — word for word — as everyone can see for themselves

    Which parts are you talking about? The parts where you really did quote me? Or, the parts where, AE, YOU LIED and misrepresented the meaning of my words? Heh.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 6:28 pm - February 17, 2009

  105. So in conclusion, AE – Keep that personal invective coming! It suits you 😉

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 6:28 pm - February 17, 2009

  106. Jennifer, instead of arguing the negative, on demanding your opponents make the case against state recognition of same-sex marriage, why don’t you make the case for gay marriage.

    That’s really the nub of my argument, that gay marriage advocates would rather attack their adversaries than promote their argument.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 17, 2009 @ 6:30 pm - February 17, 2009

  107. And Livewire, I’m gonna concede something to you here: When one wrestles with a chimney sweep, one can’t help but get a little bit dirty. I don’t know, maybe that’s what you’re trying to tell me here. Maybe the fact that I’ve bothered to tell AE he and his tactics are wrong at all, makes me look a tiny bit like him.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 6:36 pm - February 17, 2009

  108. you’d have to admit the court MUST support DOMA as there’s a nationwide consensus,

    No. No. Again, no. The court must decide based on the law. Consensus don’t have shite to do with it. In fact, it’s the express intent of the framers that the role of the court is to prevent tyranny of the majority.

    As to “rights”, I’ll just paraphrase Molly Ivins: “The entire history of this country can be viewed as a long struggle to extend to people the rights that are guaranteed them by the constituion.” And who was it that

    You’re against gay marriage? Fine, don’t get gay married. When you can show (as in, cite facts and shit) that gay marriage harms you in any way – other than bashing your fragile tunnel vision view of the world – THEN and only then do you have an argument that even makes it to the starting gate. Until then, all you are doing is giving voice to your bigotry. Btw, I don’t plan to hold my breath waiting for your supportable argument as I am pretty sure such a thing is impossible.

    Have any of you (I’m looking at you, American large producer of dung) read the Ninth Amendment lately?

    The enumeration in this Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.

    I suppose I should also note that the court, in Lawrence v. Texas effectively reversed their own ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick. So cut the crap already.

    The poet John Ciardi said “The Constitution gives every American the inalienable right to make a damn fool of himself.” Lot of folks here are sure exercising that right.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 17, 2009 @ 6:37 pm - February 17, 2009

  109. why don’t you make the case for gay marriage.

    It’s been made in various ways already in existing law, such as the equal protection clause and in the wording of both the US and every state constitution which promise equal treatment under the law. The onus is upon those who argue that in this one particular case, certain persons shouldn’t be treated equally. And none of them, yourself included, have advanced such an argument based on legal merit rather than nebulous claims about “traditional definitions” and the like.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 17, 2009 @ 6:46 pm - February 17, 2009

  110. Also, Dan, one good reason: It’s unconstitutional to deny a class of citizens the rights and privileges accorded to others unless (perhaps) there is a compelling state interest. So no, it is up to you to show a compelling state interest in denying the right and/or privilege to me and others based on my sex.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 17, 2009 @ 6:47 pm - February 17, 2009

  111. no, Jennifer and PeeJ, the onus is on those who would make the change. And PeeJ, your constitutionality argument is manufactured out of whole cloth.

    But, please guys, why the reluctance to make an affirmative gay for gay marriage?

    And BTW, guys, you read my posts, you’d know that I’m ambivalent on gay marriage.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 17, 2009 @ 7:00 pm - February 17, 2009

  112. Ah yes,

    The three phases of an ILC argument:

    1. make an asinine argument
    2. when called on it, deny you said it
    3. when your words are quoted back to you VERBATIM, whine about being called names and start sucking up to everyone individually:

    And Livewire, I’m gonna concede something to you here: When one wrestles with a chimney sweep, one can’t help but get a little bit dirty. I don’t know, maybe that’s what you’re trying to tell me here.

    Pssst, he was talking to both of us, not you. You do this sucking up every time too, its really creepy.

    If you follow form, your next step should be emailing people.

    Youve got serious issues dude. Man up.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 7:03 pm - February 17, 2009

  113. Youve got serious issues dude. Man up.

    Pachyderm, heal thyself.

    Comment by SomeNYGuy — February 17, 2009 @ 7:09 pm - February 17, 2009

  114. Hint, you can’t claim ‘consent’ as the issue as you’re declaring marriage a ‘right’ and rights can’t be denied people.

    Of course “rights” can be denied people. The right to drive a car is denied to all those under 16, all those who are not licensed to do so, etc.

    Just as those under certain ages can’t marry, or get credit cards, join the military & so on.

    Get some clues! It’s no fun pointing out how wrong you all are when you can’t even understand how foolish your own “points” are.

    Comment by M. Bouffant — February 17, 2009 @ 7:13 pm - February 17, 2009

  115. no, Jennifer and PeeJ, the onus is on those who would make the change.

    NO, you are WRONG about that.

    Article IV, Section 2: The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.

    Amendment 14, Section 1: …nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 17, 2009 @ 7:15 pm - February 17, 2009

  116. Wrong, me bucko. Just…just..wrong. This “change” that you speak of is not the creation of a new right or privilege. What gay marriage advocates want is for the state to STOP DEPRIVING people of a (presumed) constitutionally guaranteed right. It’s not a matter of doing something new it’s about stopping a bad practice. DOMA is roughly equivalent to the Jim Crow laws. Just as the civil rights movement of the 60’s sought to END discrimination which was (unconstituionally) codified ointo law, Those who seek gay marriage through the courts are seeking redress which is precisely the proper role of the courts.

    And the only “good reasons” are , as jennifer said, robust legal reason, not “consensus” or popular opinion or anything else.

    Personally, my partner of nearly 20 years and myself want nothing to do with traditional marriage. As with the churches and other groups of people who hate us (and that means you, buddy boy) it’s best to eschew their traditions and organizations entirely. On the other hand, it would be nice to have the benefits. All of which means nada when it comes to the legality of the situation.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 17, 2009 @ 7:21 pm - February 17, 2009

  117. That’s really the nub of my argument, that gay marriage advocates would rather attack their adversaries than promote their argument.

    As a corollary to that, the fight for “gay marriage” is much more motivated by the desire to win an “in yer face” against the C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n right than it is about undoing any tangible or material inequities. The love between two people does not require validation by a government bureaucracy, nor does recognition of a relationship by a government bureaucracy prove its worth.

    Comment by V the K — February 17, 2009 @ 7:29 pm - February 17, 2009

  118. I have two adopted sons. They both have birth certificates that say I’m their father. I’m not. It’s a legal fiction. What makes me their father is not a decree by the state, what makes it real is that I have taken responsibility and made a commitment to their upbringing. And that commitment would be the same with or without a stack of paperwork.

    Comment by V the K — February 17, 2009 @ 7:35 pm - February 17, 2009

  119. As a corollary to that, the fight for “gay marriage” is much more motivated by the desire to win an “in yer face” against the C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n right than it is about undoing any tangible or material inequities.

    V, I think it varies with the person more than you’re painting it there.

    As a gay marriage supporter, I find that excluding gay couples from State marriage licenses is simply very poor public policy. We (as a society) should be making the statement that marriage is so good and so important, even gays should do it. Provided, of course, that they meet the remaining criteria. A State marriage license is a privilege (not a right), for all couples – even straight ones. So the State, or rather the People, should still get to define criteria like age, mental capacity, being a couple (no polygamy), not already having a family relationship (no incest), etc. Only racial criteria are off-limits, and rightly so, due to the 14th Amendment (Loving v. Virginia).

    The love between two people does not require validation by a government bureaucracy, nor does recognition of a relationship by a government bureaucracy prove its worth.

    Agreed.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 7:35 pm - February 17, 2009

  120. Youve got serious issues dude.

    Talk to the mirror, AE. No one else cares. And, the mirror is who you’re really talking to, anyway.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 7:37 pm - February 17, 2009

  121. Jennifer,

    nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

    Sorry, you already enjoy equal protection of the laws. You are permitted to marry any adult member of the opposite sex to whom you are not related that your little heart desires, same as anyone else.

    Everyone is entitled to get married to a person of the opposite sex, NO one is permitted to marry a person of the opposite sex, NOR a juvenile, NOR a blood relative, NOR multiple persons.

    Yet you continue to argue you have a right to marry ANYONE just because you love them. But there are all sorts of people who love each other who are not permitted to get married.

    If wanting to marry someone you love is the test, then they must all be allowed to marry too. Equal protection would require it.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 7:39 pm - February 17, 2009

  122. NO one is permitted to marry a person of the opposite sex…

    Poor elephant can’t even type straight!

    …NOR a blood relative…

    As has been pointed out several times, this varies by state. Maybe you should stop writing until you’ve done a little more reading.

    Comment by SomeNYGuy — February 17, 2009 @ 7:51 pm - February 17, 2009

  123. AE, if you could point me to any other example where the law steps in and prohibits any 2 individuals from entering into a legal contract based on the physical attributes of either of those individuals, you might have a point.

    The problem is, you can’t. There’s no law prohibiting a one-armed man from selling his house to a one-legged man. There’s no law prohibiting a short employer from hiring a tall employee. Why don’t these laws exist? Because the state has no compelling interest in anything other than the contract itself. Hair color, eye color, skin color, height, weight, gender – none of that has anything to do with anything when it comes to 2 individuals entering into contract. Except in this one case, which just all the more pretty clearly flags it as a violation of equal protection.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 17, 2009 @ 7:53 pm - February 17, 2009

  124. AE is astoundingly dense, isn’t he? I’ll say this as simply as possible in the hopes that AE will be able to comprehend it. Jennifer has never (in this thread, leastways) made that argument, much less continue to make it. Also, the statement “you already enjoy” is an assertion which AE is clearly not competent to make.

    So, slowly now, the argument is whether what Jennifer or I or you or anyone is permitted to do is constitutionally justified. One more time: permission reflects the current state of the law; permission does not always reflect the associated right. Got it yet?

    One more time then: You can bray all you want but you are unequivocally, 100 per cent, absolutely, inarguably, wrong. Any lawyer or even a 1-L or even someone who has actually read the relevant laws and can also resaon with an ability greater than that evidenced by a common doorknob or yourself will recognize your astoundingly stoopid™ errancy.

    Last time: you are full of shit. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Your assertions are faulty as is your reasoning.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 17, 2009 @ 7:54 pm - February 17, 2009

  125. Yes, I should have typed “same sex”. Thanks!

    And the laws regarding blood relatives only vary in terms of which cousins states consider to be direct blood relatives. ALL states prohibit people from marrying their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, grandparents, aunts, uncles.

    Maybe you should stop arguing til you can make a decent argument! 😉

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 7:57 pm - February 17, 2009

  126. One more time then: You can bray all you want but you are unequivocally, 100 per cent, absolutely, inarguably, wrong.

    LOL.

    Weird how all the courts from the States to the Supreme Court itself agree with me and not with you then isnt it!

    Why dont you go read some of those decisions I linked to above, where all your arguments have already been made and rejected.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 8:01 pm - February 17, 2009

  127. Not enough personal invective.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 8:01 pm - February 17, 2009

  128. Well, now I know you’re mad. I just wanted to make sure.

    Comment by Nimrod Gently — February 17, 2009 @ 8:04 pm - February 17, 2009

  129. Weird how all the courts from the States to the Supreme Court itself agree with me and not with you then isnt it!

    Weird how the courts upheld all kinds of unconstitutional bullshit until they didn’t.

    Comment by SomeNYGuy — February 17, 2009 @ 8:05 pm - February 17, 2009

  130. AE, if you could point me to any other example where the law steps in and prohibits any 2 individuals from entering into a legal contract based on the physical attributes of either of those individuals, you might have a point.

    The law DOESNT prohibit you from entering a legal contract with anyone. It prohibits you from getting married to a member of a sex that is reproductively incompatible with your sex. You are free to draw up whatever legal contracts your little heart desires.

    And actually there’s all sorts of jobs — a legal contract — that fat people cant get, short people cant get. Blind people are prohibited from obtaining drivers licenses — another legal contract.

    The law is perfectly entitled to make distinctions between people — it does so all the time. It’s only illegal if the distinction being made is irrelevant.

    And when society wants to form an institution dealing with the best practices for reproduction and child rearing — it is entirely relevant to limit it to couples that contain one of each of the reproductive sexes.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 8:10 pm - February 17, 2009

  131. ILC,

    Calling you a liar is not invective, its simply calling a spade a spade as I proved with your own words above.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 8:12 pm - February 17, 2009

  132. Weird how the courts upheld all kinds of unconstitutional bullshit until they didn’t.

    There you have it, the liberal argument is that it is unconstitutional for the law to recognize fundamental biology!

    Why do liberals hate science so much?

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 8:15 pm - February 17, 2009

  133. The law DOESNT prohibit you from entering a legal contract with anyone. It prohibits you from getting married to a member of a sex that is reproductively incompatible with your sex.

    You seem confused. From the standpoint of the state, marriage is a legal contract. That’s what the marriage license is all about, “making it legal”. It’s a contract, nothing more or less, when it comes to the law.

    As for “reproductive compatibility”, the law doesn’t prevent old or infertile people from marrying. Clearly “ability to create a baby together” is not the legal standard in practice.

    And actually there’s all sorts of jobs — a legal contract — that fat people cant get, short people cant get.

    Fat people might very well not be offered a contract that a thin person would be offered, but where’s the law that says you can’t enter into contract with a fat person?

    Blind people are prohibited from obtaining drivers licenses — another legal contract.

    A driver’s license is not a legal contract. It’s a privilege license issued by the state when certain proscribed conditions are met, such as “not blind”. It’s not a contractual agreement between two individuals.

    In short, I would say your argument is full of massive FAIL, if you had actually made an argument.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 17, 2009 @ 8:21 pm - February 17, 2009

  134. Calling you a liar

    Ah, there it is. The personal invective, as a substitute for answering someone’s real points. Ahhhhh.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 8:25 pm - February 17, 2009

  135. There you have it, the liberal argument is that it is unconstitutional for the law to recognize fundamental biology!

    You must be so nostalgic for the days when the patent inferiority of non-white races was considered “fundamental biology.”

    Good luck with that.

    Comment by SomeNYGuy — February 17, 2009 @ 8:36 pm - February 17, 2009

  136. Actually Jennifer,

    Seeing as its me that all the courts and legislatures agree with, and you with whom they disagree, it is you that is confused. Allow me to educate you.

    From the standpoint of the state, marriage is a legal contract. That’s what the marriage license is all about, “making it legal”. It’s a contract, nothing more or less, when it comes to the law.

    Wrong. A marriage is not just a contract between two people, it is a social contract that confers obligations upon society as well. We encourage and subsidize marriage with our tax dollars. Privledges are granted to people who enter into this arrangement that society deems beneficial.

    But you claimed that the law prohibits you from entering into contracts. It does not. You are perfectly free to write up all sorts of contracts with whomever you choose. You are even free to enter into a marriage contract, but you reject the terms.

    As for “reproductive compatibility”, the law doesn’t prevent old or infertile people from marrying. Clearly “ability to create a baby together” is not the legal standard in practice.

    No, being one member of each of the reproductive sexes is the legal standard.

    Here you are arguing that because YOU cant meet the broad test, that a more specific and far more intrusive test must be adopted to exclude more people.

    The problem with that argument is that couples who previously were diagnosed as infertile have suddenly found themselves pregnant. And if we adopt your “sour grapes” policy, those children will end up being born out of wedlock! Whereas if we don’t adopt your “sour grapes” policy, and encourage all men and women to marry, the maximum number of children will be born within the confines of wedlock.

    Fat people might very well not be offered a contract that a thin person would be offered, but where’s the law that says you can’t enter into contract with a fat person?

    There are all sorts of laws that expressly prohibit people above or below a certain weight or height from performing certain jobs. Get too fat and you cant pilot an aircraft, or enter the military, or sit in the exit aisle of an aircraft.

    But there is NO law prohibiting you from entering contracts. There is only an institution that you ARE perfectly able to enter, you just choose not to because you dont like the terms.

    A driver’s license is not a legal contract. It’s a privilege license issued by the state when certain proscribed conditions are met

    It is both. And so is marriage.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 8:53 pm - February 17, 2009

  137. Wow and I thought I had problems with ILC’s use of revisionist re-rewriting and re-re-re-statements and endless denials of doing same whilst tossing about the sly, underhanded dismissive little jabs and elbows? All the while hearing complaints about being some self-described victim of “personal” “invectives”… but not missing a moment to curry favor of another, seek solace and enjoin others for the defense.

    AE, honestly, let it go. On some issues, it’s like debating with a wall… the sound of your fair points don’t penetrate and it just keeps bouncing back at ya’.

    And as a gay parent of three, I have to tell you tho’ that gay couples can have kids. We might not have procreated them in a traditional sense or our own little marital unit… in our case, we used science and a group of great lawyers… but we’re a family AE and it’s all about the quality of parenting and, in this case, the benefits of marriage as applied to the kids’ welfare… that’s what is being denied good, stable gay families who don’t have science, great lawyers or deep pocketbooks to construct the same.

    Like V, it isn’t about validation or society’s approval for me. He was called to be a great Dad for a reason far beyond just society’s validation of him as a man.

    For me, it’s about protecting our family and insuring they have the exact same priveleges that hetero couples can provide their children. Anything else is to sequester my children in some second-class status, separate of the benefits accuring to a hetero couple’s kids.

    Top all that with the societal fact that we have more kids in foster care than parents available to adopt… and we run face2face into the big, 600 lbs gorilla in the room. Some in society would rather stop gays from adopting than help these kids find a warm, loving, stable home they can prosper in… and why? Because some people worry that to allow gay couples to adopt might be construed as validating their relationship and lifestyle?? Wow. Sort of sounds as silly as denying the benefits of marriage to gay partners. I can call it SSP if you want… just make certain the benefits of marriage are contained in that SSPartnership.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 17, 2009 @ 9:01 pm - February 17, 2009

  138. You must be so nostalgic for the days when the patent inferiority of non-white races was considered “fundamental biology.”

    Good luck with that.

    Sorry, that heinous theory was advanced by Charles Darwin and Margaret Sanger — icons of todays LIBERALS not conservatives.

    But I love how you equate the inconsequential difference of skin color to the biological ability to reproduce!

    Really, why do liberals hate science?

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 9:02 pm - February 17, 2009

  139. AE, I have to give it you. I haven’t run across such consistent trolldom in some while. What? You’re serious? Naw, really? Holy shit! In that case, I haven’t seen such puerile pap since the last person to whom I gave a final grade of ‘F’ in my Remedial Rhetoric class.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 17, 2009 @ 9:12 pm - February 17, 2009

  140. Really, why do liberals hate science?

    Find me a liberal who insists the earth is only 6000 years old and demands that creationism be taught in public schools and I’ll say, “there’s a liberal who hates science.”

    In the meantime, shut up and eat your strawman. Or better still, go lecture the Palin family on the evils of conceiving and/or bearing children without benefit of “traditional marriage.”

    Comment by SomeNYGuy — February 17, 2009 @ 9:14 pm - February 17, 2009

  141. Wrong. A marriage is not just a contract between two people, it is a social contract that confers obligations upon society as well. We encourage and subsidize marriage with our tax dollars. Privledges are granted to people who enter into this arrangement that society deems beneficial.

    Uh, YES, a marriage IS just a contract between two people in the eyes of the state. And given that ALL laws are “social contracts” in that we as a society impose them upon ourselves, this particular social contract is in the terms of the law no different – that is, all of us are supposed to have access to its protections and benefits, just as we are supposed to receive equal treatment under the other laws as well.

    Here you are arguing that because YOU cant meet the broad test,

    I never argued any such thing. FWIW, I’m not gay. But I see that there’s no legally sound reason why two people with the same parts should be prohibited from making a contract. The state has shown no compelling reason why they should be singled out and refused the right to enter into a simple legal agreement. We’re supposed to live in a country where rights are assumed to be ours unless the government can show good reason to deny those rights. You haven’t offered one. Neither has the state.

    There are all sorts of laws that expressly prohibit people above or below a certain weight or height from performing certain jobs. Get too fat and you cant pilot an aircraft, or enter the military, or sit in the exit aisle of an aircraft.

    Those aren’t laws; those are the physical hiring guidelines of the various industries and organizations. Feel free to cite to me the relevant statutes otherwise.

    It is both. And so is marriage.

    No, it is not. A driver’s license is NOT A CONTRACT. Words have meanings. A driver’s license is not only NOT a contract between two individuals, it is also not a contract between an individual and the state.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 17, 2009 @ 9:15 pm - February 17, 2009

  142. Wow and I thought I had problems with ILC’s use of revisionist re-rewriting and re-re-re-statements and endless denials of doing same whilst tossing about the sly, underhanded dismissive little jabs and elbows? All the while hearing complaints about being some self-described victim of “personal” “invectives”… but not missing a moment to curry favor of another, seek solace and enjoin others for the defense.

    LOL. Lets just repeat that just for the hell of it.

    And as a gay parent of three, I have to tell you tho’ that gay couples can have kids. We might not have procreated them in a traditional sense or our own little marital unit

    Oh, I know gay couples can adopt, and raise children –as I said before, so can single people. But that’s not what ILC said or argued. He was insisting that gays can reproduce.

    But biology says otherwise, and its a distinction that matters.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 9:23 pm - February 17, 2009

  143. Let’s give him one more chance.

    Can a priest, pastor, parson, pilot or anyone else who has been empowered to solemnize a marriage dissolve same? Does dissolution of a marriage require the court? Does the court consider the marriage to be a legal contract?

    Hint: Marriage is defined as a civil contract between two people who meet the legal requirements for getting married established by the state, which vary from state to state.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 17, 2009 @ 9:25 pm - February 17, 2009

  144. Hint: Marriage is defined as a civil contract between two people who meet the legal requirements for getting married established by the state, which vary from state to state.

    PeeJ – we should further note that in no case do those legal requirements, in any state, concern themselves with things other than being of age of consent or familial relationship.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 17, 2009 @ 9:29 pm - February 17, 2009

  145. Actually, Jennifer, they do. It is additionally required (though seldom explicitly stated in the context of marriage) – as for every other civil contract – that the parties be willing and able to engage in a contract and to have done so. But yeah, until the uppity fags started demanding special rights (<– sarcasm alert!) they didn’t specify “one man and one woman.” Had they done so, I expect the laws would have to have read “one man and one woman. At a time.”

    Comment by PeeJ — February 17, 2009 @ 9:35 pm - February 17, 2009

  146. I should have known, AE, that you would get encouragment from one person who very often argues just like you – that is, by dishonest straw men, name-calling and personal attacks: Michigan-Matt. Do enjoy it 🙂 LOL

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 9:37 pm - February 17, 2009

  147. Interestingly, though, MM happens to have chosen (for whatever his reasons) to make an argument that echoes my real points – You know, not your self-invented bestiality trash, AE, but more like my real points:

    gay couples can have kids. We might not have procreated them in a traditional sense… but we’re a family

    Very interesting.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 9:41 pm - February 17, 2009

  148. Find me a liberal who insists the earth is only 6000 years old and demands that creationism be taught in public schools and I’ll say, “there’s a liberal who hates science.”.

    And you’d be wrong again, insinuating that theological belief means hostility towards science.

    What is hostile to science is accepting theory as law.

    And what is hostile to science is claiming is it unconstitutional for the law to recognize biological FACT.

    Or better still, go lecture the Palin family on the evils of conceiving and/or bearing children without benefit of “traditional marriage.”

    I dont need to. All the Palin’s who have children are married. They clearly recognize what you do not. But that is a very long list that includes a great many more names than just Palin.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 9:53 pm - February 17, 2009

  149. I know gay couples can adopt, and raise children –as I said before, so can single people. But that’s not what ILC said or argued.

    Wrong as usual! 🙂 For the record:

    #13 – gay couples can have kids: the gay couple may have them from a previous marriage, or by adoption, or by the techniques that are commonly utilized to have new kids by infertile straight couples.

    #47 – Gays reproduce all the time – again, using the same techniques as infertile straight couple. A gay couple is, reproductively speaking, the same as an infertile straight couple. [adoption is implied here, as something infertile straight couples do]

    #55 – Infertile straight couples have children by techniques such as artificial insemination, surrogate mother, or adoption. Gay couples do likewise, with the same results (i.e., very real children, related *genetically* to either 0 or 1 of the parents).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 9:53 pm - February 17, 2009

  150. P.S. I’m following this, AE, mainly to see how far you’ll go – How long you can maintain your lies – How deep you’ll dig. Come on, impress me. Call some names. More invective, please!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 9:59 pm - February 17, 2009

  151. AE? Helloooooo? I gave you a make-up quiz as an opportunity to get a passing grade. You have not availed yourself of this generous offer. I even gave you a useful hint. Son, do you even know what “rhetoric” means?

    Comment by PeeJ — February 17, 2009 @ 10:04 pm - February 17, 2009

  152. Hint: Marriage is defined as a civil contract between two people who meet the legal requirements for getting married established by the state, which vary from state to state.

    Gonna disagree with you there, Peej.

    A State marriage license creates a new legal entity, “the marriage of John and Sally” (or whoever), recognized as having its own interests and imposing obligations (in some respects) on third parties to support it. Such a thing is a privilege, never a right. We had an American Revolution to establish (among other things) that the People get to vote, not on rights, but on privileges. Even the Loving decision said, despite the ringing rhetoric, that the People still got to decide the qualifications for marriage: they simply could not use race (or rather, racial difference in the couple) as a disqualification.

    I support gay marriage and that is my view. Gay marriage should come by democracy, not by courts. It is up to the people proposing it (which I’ve been doing for about 15 years now) to justify it. That’s my view… now act like AE and call me names, if that’s your style and if you want to implicitly concede the argument.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 10:13 pm - February 17, 2009

  153. AE? Is anybody out there? Did your mom send you to bed so soon? Ahh, yes, it is a school night. Well then, pip pip cheerio and all that sort of rot.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 17, 2009 @ 10:17 pm - February 17, 2009

  154. Nope. A corporation is a new legal entity (since the SCOTUS ruled way way back when that corporations are legally people) but a marriage is not. A marriage is exactly what I stated, a civil contract. And a right.

    To wit,
    Zablocki v. Redhail 1978 – The Court reasoned that marriage was “a fundamental right” triggering “rigorous scutiny” of Wisconsin’s justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.

    Earlier, in Loving v. Virginia, (1967). the Court found Virginia’s law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with ‘the fundamental freedom” of marriage.

    So disagree all you want, and invite as much abuse as you like, but the facts say you got that one wrong.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 17, 2009 @ 10:25 pm - February 17, 2009

  155. All the Palin’s who have children are married.

    That will be news to Bristol and Levi.

    You seem a bit addled. Are you posting from a Tilt-a-Whirl?

    Comment by SomeNYGuy — February 17, 2009 @ 10:25 pm - February 17, 2009

  156. Uh, YES, a marriage IS just a contract between two people in the eyes of the state.

    Oh, so you don’t want the tax deductions available to married couples? You don’t want banks and businesses to recognize your marriage? You don’t want social security survivor benefits? Etc, etc, etc…

    Cus those are all contractual obligations conferred on society by marriage. You lose.

    And given that ALL laws are “social contracts” in that we as a society impose them upon ourselves

    No, if you draw up an employment contract, I have no obligation in that contract. If you get married, my tax dollars go to subsidize your marriage. You lose again.

    But I see that there’s no legally sound reason why two people with the same parts should be prohibited from making a contract.

    They arent! They can draw up power of attorney, wills, visitation rights, etc, etc, etc. What they cant do is force society to subsidize their relationship because that requires society’s consent. Once again, you lose.

    The state has shown no compelling reason why they should be singled out

    1. They are not “singled out”. gay individuals can enter into marriage just like anyone else. 2. Same sex relationships are one of many relationships that do not qualify for marriage. You lose yet again.

    Those aren’t laws; those are the physical hiring guidelines of the various industries and organizations. Feel free to cite to me the relevant statutes otherwise.

    “those arent laws! those are REGULATIONS authorized by law!” In government hiring, they are the law. You lose.

    No, it is not. A driver’s license is NOT A CONTRACT.

    The hell it isnt. Its a contract between the driver and the state government, specifically the department of motor vehicles. You agree to obey traffic laws, pass tests, and they give you a license, which they are authorized to revoke at any time if you neglect your obligations under the contract.

    Words have meanings.

    Yes! they do!

    con·tract [ kón tràkt ] noun (plural con·tracts)
    Definition:1. formal agreement: a formal or legally binding agreement.

    You lose again

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 10:26 pm - February 17, 2009

  157. Peej, you don’t get the Loving decision, do you? That Court used “fundamental freedom” language… not “fundamental right” language. In other words: The People still get to decide who qualifies for the license in their State, and who doesn’t.

    There is no fundamental right to a State license for anything – be it fishing, driving, professional practice, marriage, or playing the kazoo in the town square. There are only rights not to be discriminated against invidiously on the basis of race, etc. – or of racial difference in a couple, in this case. But discriminating on the basis of gender difference (or lack thereof) in a couple? The Loving court had no problem with that. All SCOTUS since then, up to and including today, have had no problem with that. If I’m wrong, take your case to SCOTUS. If you don’t think you’ll do very well: then man up and face the fact that you (or should I say ‘we’, we longtime gay marriage advocates) need to *persuade* the People to vote positively for gay marriage. And, in a democracy, rightly so.

    As for this:

    A corporation is a new legal entity… but a marriage is not.

    No. The State marriage license creates a new legal entity, “the marriage of…”, recognized as having its own interests. Ask any divorce lawyer. Not all new legal entities are the same – i.e., not all are followed by “, Inc.”; not all are to be recognized as new persons. I don’t claim the marriage is a new legal person. But, yes, it is a new legal *entity*, imposing obligations on third parties – and that isn’t (and can’t possibly be) a right. For anyone. Not even for straight couples.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 10:38 pm - February 17, 2009

  158. ILC said: “I support gay marriage and that is my view. Gay marriage should come by democracy, not by courts.”

    ILC, do you even understand why we have the courts in the first place?

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 17, 2009 @ 10:38 pm - February 17, 2009

  159. AE, you’re really a piece of work. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 17, 2009 @ 10:38 pm - February 17, 2009

  160. ILC,

    Please cite anywhere where I disagreed with what you said in #13?

    Please, I will wait!

    The fact is, I didn’t! So thats another lie to add to your long list of lies.

    I didnt disagree with you until you said this:

    Gays cant reproduce

    Once again, wrong in fact.

    Gays reproduce all the time – again, using the same techniques as infertile straight couple.

    But you didnt quote THAT part did you?

    A handy lie of omission.

    To which I then pointed out that your definition of “reproduction” applies equally to people and their pets, using your own definition verbatim. Which you then denied and dismissed as ridiculous despite the fact that your definition was entirely true when the word “bestial” was substituted for “same sex”

    But unlike me, you have been unable to document anything I said that was untrue.

    Youre a liar, its been documented, its been recognized by others.

    Go reproduce with your dog.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 10:45 pm - February 17, 2009

  161. AE, you’re really a piece of work

    Well, I can’t argue against you there. I mean, in my own case, I used the concept of adoption in no less than three early-ish comments – and, the word “adoption” explicitly in two of those – and he seriously wants people to believe I wasn’t pushing the idea of gay couples adopting, among other things. Ohh-kay…. 😉

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 10:46 pm - February 17, 2009

  162. AE, look at your very own selective quotation of me:

    Gays reproduce all the time – *****again, using the same techniques as infertile straight couple*****.

    Dude – seriously – ARE YOU BLIND?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 10:47 pm - February 17, 2009

  163. Oh, and you know my other piece of feedback: Not enough invective. Come on… you can name-call better than that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 10:49 pm - February 17, 2009

  164. AE, you’re really a piece of work. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

    No, Pee, whats sad is that every court in the land, including the courts in CA and MA agree with me, none agree with you, and you are still stomping your feet and holding your breath insisting you are right with absolutely no evidence to back up your claims.

    Here’s an idea! Instead of arguing that it is unconstitutional for the law to recognize fundamental biological facts, why dont you come to terms with science, and come to terms with yourself, then come up with some compelling reasons why it would be in society’s interest to recognize gay marriage nonetheless!

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 10:55 pm - February 17, 2009

  165. And one more thought – Are you, AE, comparing infertile straight couples to bestial couples? Is that a subtext of all this?

    Because it logically follows from your misrepresentations of my meaning. I’ve said gay couples are reproductively the same as infertile straight couples. (And they are. It’s a fact.) You brought up the topic of bestial “couples” – the first obvious absurdity of your claims, since only people can ever be couples. But I digress. In your sick mind (not in mine), a bestial “couple” would “reproduce” using the techniques I brought up – “artificial insemination, surrogate mother, or adoption” was my quote. I.e., the techniques used by infertile straight couples. Hence the question.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 11:02 pm - February 17, 2009

  166. you have been unable to document anything I said that was untrue

    Again, dude, seriously – are you blind? See any of my comments for my true position. As regards your insane lies about me specifically, see #55, 71, 75, 103, 148, 159, 160.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 11:07 pm - February 17, 2009

  167. GayPatriotWest:

    This is a really embarassing post you’ve written. Clearly, based on your comments made to commenters far more knowledgeable in this area, you know nothing about constitutional law as it regards suspect classes (your ignorance about the operation of the equal protection clause is especially sad), and — because of your ignorance — you insist the “case for gay marriage hasn’t been made.” (Um, really? You haven’t read ANY justifications for gay marriage over the last few months? Have you looked? Do you ever read a gay paper? Read a voter pamphlet? Watch TV commercials? The whole “No on 8” campaign was composed of ad hominem attacks? No, your starting, off-base premise doesn’t even _deserve_ a response.)

    Then, when you are called obtuse because of your combination of legal ignorance and your refusal to be schooled, you claim proponents of same-sex marriage can only resort to ad hominem attacks. Sad. Truly sad and pathetic.

    Really, sweetheart, you have issues. You have a very serious closet syndrome. If you want to internalize your self-loathing with posts like these, it is indeed your right in the good old USA. But don’t think anyone who is at least halfway perceptive can’t see through your issues, and please realize that in your desire to debase yourself, you’re also hurting a lot of people far better adjusted than you.

    I say this as a previously-married gay man, raising two expectional kids with my partner, and the cooperation and help of my now-remarried ex.

    Marriage? Never again for me. But I still haven’t heard anywhere above a single argument for keeping the law hidebound, except for nebulous arguments about “tradition” (which ignore the eradication of hosts of related traditions over time) — and that’s a rather self-reflexive maneuver, isn’t it?

    Comment by Barry E. — February 17, 2009 @ 11:10 pm - February 17, 2009

  168. AE, please remit forthwith all facts, citations &c. which support your assertions.

    Until such time, I remain, your intellectual, ethical, moral and all around superior.

    Also, didn’t your mother tell you to turn off the computer?

    Comment by PeeJ — February 17, 2009 @ 11:12 pm - February 17, 2009

  169. Please cite anywhere where I disagreed with what you said in #13?

    At #141, you said this:

    I know gay couples can adopt… But that’s not what ILC said or argued.

    At #148, I demonstrated that I most certainly *****did**** say and argue that gay couples adopt – by quoting #13:

    #13 – gay couples can have kids: the gay couple may have them from a previous marriage, or by adoption, or by the techniques that are commonly utilized to have new kids by infertile straight couples.

    Which is how #13 re-entered it. Note the misdirection contained in your question, then, which attempts to pretend the issue was something else. Oh, and I also quoted these:

    #47 – Gays reproduce all the time – again, using the same techniques as infertile straight couple. A gay couple is, reproductively speaking, the same as an infertile straight couple. [adoption is implied here, as something infertile straight couples do]

    #55 – Infertile straight couples have children by techniques such as artificial insemination, surrogate mother, or adoption. Gay couples do likewise, with the same results (i.e., very real children, related *genetically* to either 0 or 1 of the parents).

    AE, you lied.

    Like I said, I’m following this mainly to see how far you’ll go – How long you can maintain your insane lies – How deep you’ll dig. Come on, impress me. Call some names. More lies and invective, please! 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 11:13 pm - February 17, 2009

  170. ILC,

    since you apparently flunked biology, infertile couples don’t reproduce either! They’re INFERTILE.

    in·fer·tile [ in fúrt’l ]

    adjective
    Definition:

    1. sterile: physically incapable of conceiving offspring

    Just like gays! Physically INCAPABLE of reproducing!

    Yet YOU had to insist that gays CAN reproduce!

    Youre the asshat who made an asinine argument. And now youre lying and blaming everyone but yourself.

    Again, zero integrity.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 11:15 pm - February 17, 2009

  171. More! Not enough invective or insanity, I say MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 11:17 pm - February 17, 2009

  172. infertile couples don’t reproduce either

    Not by themselves. As I’ve put it many times now, they do it:

    …by techniques such as artificial insemination, surrogate mother, or adoption… [resulting in] very real children, related *genetically* to either 0 or 1 of the parents.

    To try to save your insane lies, you’re insisting on a definition of “reproduce” that relates exclusively to genetic relation to both parents. Which is valid in strict biological contexts. But, in context of this thread, you’ve already been admonished several times – not just by me – that true family, true child-raising, true “reproduction” as far as the State is concerned, encompass more than that.

    – When an infertile couple (gay or straight) has a kid using someone else’s sperm: only related genetically to one parent, but still really *the couple’s* kid. The couple’s project. They’ve reproduced their love and their values.
    – When an infertile couple (gay or straight) has a kid using someone else’s egg: only related genetically to one parent, again really *the couple’s* kid.
    – When an infertile couple (gay or straight) adopts: related genetically to neither parent, again really *the couple’s* kid.

    AE, you know that that is (1) the truth; and – because I’ve said it all along – (2) exactly what I meant along. But, AE, DIG DEEPER! More LIES! MORE INVECTIVE! WE…. NEED…. MOOOOOOOOOOORRRRE!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 17, 2009 @ 11:26 pm - February 17, 2009

  173. P.S. I outgrew my wise-ass contrarianism when I was in my 20’s. Your “devil’s advocacy” strikes me as less-than-sincere attention-seeking behavior.

    Sorry if that’s all ad hominem and everything, but you’re a big boy now, and maybe you should hang up the act.

    Comment by Barry E. — February 17, 2009 @ 11:31 pm - February 17, 2009

  174. No, what you’ve done all along ILC is attempt to REDEFINE of the word “Reproduce” to mean “adopt someone else’s offspring.

    When I pointed out that your definition of “reproduction” applies equally to people and their PETS, you insisted it didn’t despite the fact that your definition was equally true when I substituted the phrase “same sex” with “bestial”.

    The fact remains gay couples cannot reproduce, INFERTILE couples cannot reproduce, and your attempts to redefine the word don’t change that fact.

    And it is the very fact that gay couples cannot reproduce and that ONLY heterosexuality reproduces that is at the very center of the gay marriage argument.

    Redefining the language is what liberals do. Its a sleazy dishonest tactic that you revel in.

    To try to save your insane lies, you’re insisting on a definition of “reproduce” that relates exclusively to genetic relation to both parents. Which is valid in strict biological contexts.

    YES! to save my non-existant “lies” I am insisting that words have meaning. To save your real lies, you are insisting they DONT.

    Thats quite the point!

    And you are the only one who has lied in the process, as you regularly do, as others have recognized.

    Funny how people agree with me that you lie, but no one agrees with you that I do.

    So seriously, go reproduce with your dog.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 17, 2009 @ 11:52 pm - February 17, 2009

  175. AE is a chicken! bwahk bawk bawk bawk bwaaahk!

    Comment by PeeJ — February 18, 2009 @ 12:00 am - February 18, 2009

  176. AE continues to avoid addressing the uncomfortable questions. We’re totally thrilled with your base assertions but really, a fact every now and then would go a long way to establishing a teensy weensy little bit of credibility.

    Right, you don’t have any facts. And besides, facts have such a liberal bias. Tata sweetcheeks.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 18, 2009 @ 12:11 am - February 18, 2009

  177. AE, DIG DEEPER! More LIES! MORE INVECTIVE! WE…. NEED…. MOOOOOOOOOOORRRRE!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 18, 2009 @ 12:12 am - February 18, 2009

  178. Funny how people agree with me that you lie

    ROFLMAO – So truth is statistical? You found one person to tell you what you want to hear – that your lies and invective against me would somehow be true – Michigan-Matt, a guy that the GP blog owners had to threaten with a ban for his misconduct, at one point – and you think that makes some difference to the truth?

    AE, DIG DEEPER! More LIES! MORE INVECTIVE! WE…. NEED…. MOOOOOOOOOOORRRRE!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 18, 2009 @ 12:16 am - February 18, 2009

  179. Just a thought: have you made any effort to get the professor’s point of view? Or is an e-mail from a reader all the tinder you need to tar the progressive movement as a whole?

    Is the classroom an appropriate place to witness, GayPatriot? That’s the question here.

    Comment by Barry E. — February 18, 2009 @ 12:19 am - February 18, 2009

  180. Just noticed that you have TAGS up at top entitled “mean-spirited leftists” and “Gay PC silliness.”

    Glad you don’t fall for that ad hominem/generalization stuff.

    Nope, you’re too SMART for that! You ENGAGE intellectually, with smart, smart arguments.

    Comment by Barry E. — February 18, 2009 @ 12:27 am - February 18, 2009

  181. Gotta keep spritzing:

    BTW — have you seen the generational breakdown on same sex marriage? Very revelaing stuff.

    When the dinosaurs who have your professed mentality die off, same-sex marriage WILL be legal. So it’s a matter of time — that’s all.

    Swimming upstream, baby.

    But I don’t believe your act is sincere. It’s a niche. Even Andrew Sullivan grew up. You should, too.

    Comment by Barry E. — February 18, 2009 @ 12:30 am - February 18, 2009

  182. So, get down to showing some hard facts and evidence about how you personally will suffer irreparable physical or financial harm if everyone is treated equally under the law, and you might have something of interest to say.

    I can refute this one rather easily.

    Explain how you suffer irreparable physical or financial harm if “everyone is treated equally under the law” — which means allowing child marriage, incestuous marriage, plural marriage, beastialist marriage, and all other forms of marriage that are currently banned.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 18, 2009 @ 1:07 am - February 18, 2009

  183. Let me see if I follow all this nonsense”

    1) ILC & AE are engaged in a life or death struggle to see who has the biggest dick. The answer, of course, is that you’re both total dicks for this pissing match (distraction). Love ya both, but this is fucking retarded.

    “Take it outside, take it outside, take it outside!”

    2) Some NY Asshole has an unhealthy hard-on for the Palins, bringing them up no matter what the discussion.

    3) Some clown said

    We Heteros don’t need any help from you Homos.

    Clearly, you do. You’d still have laminate floors and formica counters with Avacado appliances, if left to your own devices.

    4) Those who support gay marriage us the classic reason “because it’s not fair” and “Give us gay marriage, you dirty sonofabitch!” reasons rather than actually putting forth anything positive that folks will find appealing.

    Here’s a hint: Taking a shit in somebody’s shoe is not going to make them like you and they’ll be less inclined to help or support you.

    5)Peej offers:

    Fuck that noise. Is that a persona you don or are you in fact a nasty little shit with zero appreciation for what so many people worked so hard, many of whom suffered tremendously. Grow up you ungrateful self-important blowhard.

    Looking at the gay “community” and so-called “pride” events, I have to wonder WHO does appreciate it? Meanwhile, “ungrateful self-important blowhard“, IMHO, applies to just about anybody in said gay “community”. Not to mention arrogant, elitist, selfish, narcissistic etc.

    6) Somebody said:

    Find me a liberal who insists the earth is only 6000 years old and demands that creationism be taught in public schools and I’ll say, “there’s a liberal who hates science.”

    Find me a liberal who insists the earth is warming and demands that we spend trillions of dollars on bullshit methods to stop it, demands that it be taught in public schools and I’ll show you a dumb fuck with chronic rectal-cranial inversion who hates science.

    7) I think Jennifer said something about how we don’t consider sex when it comes to employment. The hell we don’t. We consider sex and skin color in matters of employment or school admissions, pat ourselves on the back for our bigotry and marvel at how “progressive” we are.

    Long story short, nobody’s really stayed on the course Dan laid out. Have I got all this right?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 18, 2009 @ 2:23 am - February 18, 2009

  184. AE (no relation), you’re my hero!!!! I love how you’ve been mopping the floor with these guys, and, of course, they’re so self-involved and intellectually obtuse that they don’t even realize how long ago they lost the argument. One other thought I will add to this (and I’ve made this argument before on this site) — society has an interest in defining marriage as one man/one woman because society correctly recognizes the unique contributions of a man and a woman to the spiritual, emotional, and intellectual development of a child. A single man, a single woman, two men, two women, three men or whatever other combination you want to come up by definition falls short of this ideal. That’s not to say that single parents or same sex parents can’t be terrific…. of course they can be. But by definition they cannot provide the male-female role models of traditional marriage, and therefore, the voters have decided over and over again that the definition of marriage should not be “watered down” to include these alternative family structures. At the end of the day, the marriage debate is really about what is in the best interests of children… not what is in the best interests of a bunch of self-involved gay men who want to try to invent new rights for themselves and force the government to sanction their personal relationships.

    Comment by Elephant in the Room — February 18, 2009 @ 2:25 am - February 18, 2009

  185. Barry E., I’m trying to figure out how this post is embarrassing. I mean, if it were you’d quote the post (as have some of my critics) and show me where I’m wrong.

    If the commenters (to whom I’ve commented) are so knowledgeable, how come they ignore the basic point of the post?

    And, um, how do you know I’m so ignorant of the equal protection clause and constitutional law? Yes I’ve read a number of those such justifications and don’t buy the argument that courts should decide this. An argument I share with a number of notable jurists, including three justices on the California Supreme Court & a majority of the New York State and Washington State Supreme Courts.

    And where did I say I say the whole “No on 8” campaign was based on ad hominem attacks? Scroll through my past posts on gay marriage and you’ll see me praising some of their ads and praising those advocates of gay marriage, alas, all too few, who talk about the meaning of gay marriage. I mean, that’s the point of this post. Or did you read to the end to see my appeal to gay marriage advocates? Or did you even bother to read the first line of the post where I made clear that I was referring to “some” (not all) gay marriage advocates. (Third word of the post’s body.)

    My refusal to be schooled? Or do you mean my refusal to see the world as you do? Is that what you mean by schooled? How many of those people to whom I commented actually addressed the point of the post? Recall, the point of the post was to fault those who call opponents of gay marriage haters, something I wrote about previously. Not to fault the arguments of all gay marriage advocates (those who read this blog know that I have praised several. (Check the google search if you don’t believe me.)

    Serious closet-syndrome, Barry? What do you know about my life? Have you read my posts? Do you know how frequently I have gone to conservative shindigs and identified myself as gay? Do you know that I’m out to my family and all of my friends?

    And please tell me, how this post is “self-loathing.” Point to the words I used and the arguments I have made.

    Your very comment proves my point. You’d rather label me, make assumptions about me than engage me. And so far, all your assumptions are wrong.

    And where did I say the law should be hidebound? If you’d bother to familiarize yourself with my ideas, you’d know that I believe state legislatures, not courts, should decide this issue. (Check this google search to learn my ideas.

    The more you reveal your assumptions about me, the more your display your prejudice and your ignorance and the more your prove one of my primary points about how some (all too many, alas) gay people regard gay conservatives.

    Now onto your next comment, #176, where, in my post, did I tar the progressive movement as a whole? Please point to the particular language so I can change it. I just meant to refer to certain people. (Once again, did you even read the third word of the post? Did you even get the appeal at the end for civil discourse?)

    As to the categories, well, don’t you think it’s mean-spirited and politically correct to call someone a “fascist” merely because he offers a different point of view?

    As to the generational breakdown, once again, Barry E, go read my past posts. I blogged on that in the immediate aftermath of the passage of 8. (Even mentioned it when I spoke on this in my mostly gay synagogue.) Dinosaurs of my professed mentality? That I believe state legislatures should determine gay marriage? Is it antiquated to believe the elected legislature rather than appointed judges should resolve certain controversial issues?

    Barry, you have shown that you don’t even know what that mentality is.

    Gosh, how prejudiced you are against conservative idea, assuming it’s just an act to put forward a different point of view, just an act to fault people for engaging in hate speech and trying to silence their opponents. Because that’s the point of the post. I’m not agreeing with Jonathan Lopez, just supporting his right to express his opinion in a public forum (indeed, at a place where ideas should be freely exchanged)? By the same token, I rescued your comments from the spam filter, not because I agreed with your point of view, but because I like our comments section to showcase different points of view.

    Given the assumptions you made about me, an admission of error and an apology is in order.

    Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — February 18, 2009 @ 2:33 am - February 18, 2009

  186. Elephant in the Room – I’m with you, baby, all the way! We need more AE on this blog! More LIES about people he disagrees with! More name-calling and personal INVECTIVE! WE…. NEED…. MOOOOOOOOOOORRRRE!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 18, 2009 @ 3:32 am - February 18, 2009

  187. Is the classroom an appropriate place to witness, GayPatriot? That’s the question here.

    Notice how Barry E and his ilk scream about people expressing their religious beliefs in school, but have no problem with teaching gay sex to five year olds.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 18, 2009 @ 4:47 am - February 18, 2009

  188. Agree or disagree with AE, one thing that can not be said honestly is that his arguments are based on hate. The hateful rhetoric seems to be coming from the PeeJ/Barry E side of the house; who clearly do hate the people who disagree with them.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 5:10 am - February 18, 2009

  189. How can a person bitch about expressing religious beliefs in school, but support forcing students to read the Koran or watch An Inconvenient Lie?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 18, 2009 @ 5:10 am - February 18, 2009

  190. Frankly, PeeJ’s demand that AE submit “facts and citations” to prove that gay couples can not reproduce except through artificial means shows how through the looking glass people are on this subject

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 5:13 am - February 18, 2009

  191. How can a person bitch about expressing religious beliefs in school, but support forcing students to read the Koran or watch An Inconvenient Lie?

    Because to the diseased minds of the far left, thousands of years of Judeo-C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n wisdom are just a silly superstition; but the idea that we’re all going to burn up from carbon dioxide based on a few clumsy computer models is “scientific fact.”

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 5:19 am - February 18, 2009

  192. one thing that can not be said honestly is that his arguments are based on hate

    V, just curious: If somebody resorts to flat-out lying about the people they disagree with – see, oh, any of AE’s personal attacks on me, though he certainly does it to anybody, left or right, whose arguments he doesn’t know how to address effectively – would you say that is a sign of hatred or not? This is a sincere question, as I suppose it could be a sign of something else.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 18, 2009 @ 5:21 am - February 18, 2009

  193. would you say that is a sign of hatred or not?

    The two of you arguing over whose dick is bigger is pissing me off. Take that however you wish.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 18, 2009 @ 6:39 am - February 18, 2009

  194. ILC, I’m not saying AE’s manner of argument was unerringly civil, I’m just saying his opposition to gay marriage does not come from hatred of gay people.

    As a sidebar, I’ve been on the receiving end of far worse personal attacks than anything AE has dished out. During the Schaivo debate, one member of the “let the b-tch die” crowd threatened to beat up my children. At AoSHQ, I had to post under a different pseudonym most of last year because some found my lack of enthusiasm for John McLandslide disturbing. Michigan-Matt has called me a racist N-a-z-i. When my blog was linked on HuffPo after the election, I received of “colorful” comments and emails. The blogosphere is a biker bar, not a tea party. I don’t always like it, but I accept it.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 7:05 am - February 18, 2009

  195. ILC, you’re the more rational of the two arguing. I think you both need to take some zoloft, or a good walk to calm down.

    I think, what AE is trying to argue with reproduction is that Will and Jada can get married and reproduce, Melissa and KD can’t, no matter how hard they try. They need David’s contribution, which means an outside force. I’ve no idea how this has any bearing, but that’s his point (I think).

    You and I have similar methods to different results, I’m all for a referrendum or legislature recognized institution of same sex partnerships. Call it fred if you want, but don’t call it marriage. You’re for expanding the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, yes?

    PeeJ, I’d rip your arguements to shreds, but I’m still laughing that you believe we all have a ‘right’ to drive. I think that does the job of ripping the arguement apart for me.

    Jennifer, so you wish to live in a society where laws and their meanings constantly shift and change based on the whim of people who sit above us in black robes? There’s this city called Waterdeep, you might want to move there. (Well at least pre-spellplague).

    As others have pointed out, you have the same privilege as any other woman to have a legal union (called Marriage) recognized with any other one man of your choice. You want something non-standard, then you take proactive steps to secure that. Arguing “I’m a victim” is not proactive.

    My mom and her partner have been in their relationship for 7 years now. My cousin and her partner about as long I think. I likely know more polyamourous groups than most, one of which has been going on for close to 10 years now. They don’t need the government to affirm their relationships, or call it marriage.

    Now I’m going to go take my zoloft/wellbutrin mix and get to work.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 18, 2009 @ 7:55 am - February 18, 2009

  196. I apologize for the strong language, Dan, but not for my position.

    I’m quite familiar with conservative thought. I went to one of the most conservative colleges in the nation, and was a member of the Federalist Society, before I became disgusted with the positions they took on “enemy combatants” under Bush. So, the false assumption thing runs both ways.

    Your premise is false. Only a minor, ignorant few consider every same-sex marriage opponent to be a “hater.”

    You then turn this minor few into being emblematic of an entire movement for same-sex marriage. (Yes, you really do, Dan. Here’s the language: “It’s long past time for advocates of same-sex marriage to stop badmouthing their adversaries and to start making the case for the social change they seek.” That’s not “some,” Dan, that’s saying the pro-same-sex marriage folks haven’t bothered to articulate a case.) Above, you concede that you just don’t find equal protection arguments “persausive.” Well, dandy, but that’s not the argument you presented in the post. And I have a sneaking suspicion that no argument would unseat you from the unique role you’ve chosen to play in the blogosphere.

    I think your premise is false, your arguments are weak, and your ideas are outmoded and retrograde. As far as the legislature deciding, that’s swell, and I somewhat agree. But California’s legislature repeatedly passed same-sex marriage bills, which were vetoed by Arnold because HE SAID THE ISSUE SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE COURTS! At some point, the buck passing has to stop.

    You actively hurt lots of people with what you do. If you’ve found comfort in the society of people who equate your relationships with screwing a dog, more power to you. But I’m not going to keep silent to avoid hurt feelings. It’s just too important, and your ideas need to be pushed back.

    Did you see that Salt Lake City Tribune ad, Dan? That’s what I’m fighting against. Your blog is just a milder flavor of the exact, same thing.

    Comment by Barry E. — February 18, 2009 @ 8:29 am - February 18, 2009

  197. One last thing, and then I’ll leave you and your playmates to this sandbox:

    Your mission statement, at the top of the page, claims this site represents “millions of patriotic gays and lesbians” and makes the ludicrous claim that it seeks to act in their interests by advocating for “freedom,” “fairness” and “privacy.”

    Seems to me, from my brief visit, that your audience consists mostly of folks who have a bone to pick with the queers. And you manage to find a lot of common cause. I’m not sure how you believe that acting as a kapo on this site advances the cause of these millions of constituents, or how adhering to “traditional” views regarding the exclusive nature of marriage furthers the concepts of “freedom,” “fairness” or “privacy.”

    PeeJ had it right: a lot of people got bonked on the head to help give you the right to speak “on their behalf” to conspire in their re-marginalization.

    These are really serious issues for contemplation.

    Comment by Barry E. — February 18, 2009 @ 9:17 am - February 18, 2009

  198. Jennifer, so you wish to live in a society where laws and their meanings constantly shift and change based on the whim of people who sit above us in black robes?

    No, I’d much prefer to live in a society where black people are still enslaved and women are chattel.

    What are you on, anyway?

    The right to equal treatment under the law already exists in the constitution. It’s not a matter of “shifting laws and their meanings”. It’s a matter of upholding what is supposed to be the highest law of the land.

    I can’t help but notice that none of you, NONE, have yet advanced one single affirmative reason why treating same sex couples equally under the law would infringe on your – or anyone else’s – rights. So we’re back in White Citizens’ Council territory – “these darkies shouldn’t have the same rights we do because we don’t like them and we don’t want them to have them.”

    A legal argument it ain’t.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 9:29 am - February 18, 2009

  199. The right to equal treatment under the law already exists in the constitution. It’s not a matter of “shifting laws and their meanings”. It’s a matter of upholding what is supposed to be the highest law of the land.
    I can’t help but notice that none of you, NONE, have yet advanced one single affirmative reason why treating same sex couples equally under the law would infringe on your – or anyone else’s – rights.

    Jennifer, again you’re twisting the argument around so that (1) marriage is a question of rights – but it isn’t; (2) gay marriage supporters (of which I was an early one – You’re welcome) have no burden to forward forward an affirmative case for gay marriage – but we do.

    I’ll tell you what violates people’s rights: Having unelected judges legislate what privileges should exist and what they should be called. Rights and privileges are different. We had something called the American Revolution to establish, among other things, the people’s *right* to be free from the arbitrary or undemocratic imposition of *privileges*. State licenses for things are privileges. Including for straights, by the way. Morally, they have to be legislated democratically. And practically as well, i.e., not getting them that way only breeds division and backlash.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 18, 2009 @ 9:43 am - February 18, 2009

  200. ILoveCapitalism – I completely disagree. When a state sets up a “privilege” as you classify marriage, and then arbitrarily restricts it based on the physical attributes of those who wish to avail themselves of it, then it runs afoul of the constitution, and the state absolutely does bear the burden of advancing a credible legal reason for the unequal access to the privilege.

    But no need to “your welcome” me – your support or lack thereof isn’t keeping me from getting married, because I’m not interested in marrying a woman. Or anyone else, for that matter.

    I’m just someone who has no patience with the creechers who claim that their “feelings” or “opinions” or “tradition” or “religion” or “bigotries” deserve the force of law to deny equality under law to others. And this is ultimately why you’re wrong about this “privilege” distinction – because it allows the state to arbitrarily bestow benefits upon some while denying them to others, based solely on the whim of the majority. No citizen’s “feelings” or “opinons” or, yes, even “religion” are more important than the equal treatment under the law of other citizens.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 10:14 am - February 18, 2009

  201. Take that however you wish.

    TGC, then my answer is: No offense taken. No worries.

    As a sidebar, I’ve been on the receiving end of far worse personal attacks than anything AE has dished out… The blogosphere is a biker bar, not a tea party.

    I know, V. I just answer what’s in front of me. I have seen many people treated unfairly on many blogs. Sometimes I don’t intervene, sometimes I do. You may remember that in the MM “Nazi” incidents, I wasn’t a direct target, but went out of my way to become one by calling his bullying tactics by their right name. And I have been taking stick from him ever since, LOL. No big deal, it’s all in a day’s work. In this case, I happen to be doing it on my own behalf. AE is welcome to call me names, AE is welcome to make up sh*t about me. I’m just gonna underline what it really is, is all.

    ILC, you’re the more rational of the two arguing

    Well Livewire, thank you, that’s something 😉

    I think, what AE is trying to argue with reproduction is that Will and Jada can get married and reproduce, Melissa and KD can’t, no matter how hard they try. They need David’s contribution, which means an outside force. I’ve no idea how this has any bearing, but that’s his point (I think).

    Livewire, it’s been one part of my point too, this whole time. Infertile straight couples have a mode of reproduction. Their mode is not the mode of fertile straight couples, obviously. Infertile couples rely on outside assistance, obviously. And – it is still reproduction; it is a project *of the couple* and reproduces their existence and values as a couple. It results in very real kids, that are theirs in every sense that counts, even if the kids are related genetically to only 0 or 1 of the parents. And gay couples do the same. The mode of reproduction of infertile straight couples is the mode of reproduction of gay couples. They are reproductively the same. I’ve said this simple point (simple to anyone but AE) consistently, in repetitive words and in varied words.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 18, 2009 @ 10:15 am - February 18, 2009

  202. I’ll tell you what violates people’s rights: Having unelected judges legislate what privileges should exist and what they should be called.

    Exactly. That’s the best example. But let’s consider some other infringements. Gay activists want children to be indoctrinated in school that gay relationships are in every way equal to heterosexual relationships. In California, they want that indoctrination enforced by law. This infringes the rights of parents to raise children in accordance with their own moral beliefs.

    Gay activists also want to shout down any criticism of gay marriage as “hate speech,” thus infringing on the first amendment rights of persons to express their moral beliefs. Also, those who have donated to the cause of opposing gay marriage are being targeted for harassment… again, solely on the basis of exercising their right to free speech which, unlike marriage, is an enumerated right in the Constitution.

    I didn’t expect the gay activist crowd to fold up their tents, shut down their offices, and get real jobs after winning marriage rights. To keep the donations flowing, they will have to find another cause and it seems quite clear that the next cause is silencing opposition.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 10:19 am - February 18, 2009

  203. When a state sets up a “privilege” as you classify marriage, and then arbitrarily restricts it based on the physical attributes of those who wish to avail themselves of it, then it runs afoul of the constitution

    SCOTUS would disagree with you, Jennifer. The Loving decision found that because of the 14th amendment, racial difference in a couple could never be used as a disqualification for giving them a license. Great – exactly right. The same Court has also found implicitly that other physical characteristics, such as age and mental capacity and family kinship and, um, gender difference, could continue to be used as qualifications or disqualifications. So, it is the People’s choice. Until and unless a future SCOTUS finds otherwise.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 18, 2009 @ 10:24 am - February 18, 2009

  204. It’s dishonest and TEDIOUS to criticize those who don’t engage the circular argument of “traditional marriage.” Denying Gay and Lesbian citizens the right to marry is wrong. Our Constitution makes that clear. Being defensive about individuals expressing their opinions and frustrations about what bigotry and ignorance feels and sounds like on this issue is human nature. Evolve or not on the issue of fairness. It’s apparent that folks are NOT going to stop fighting for their civil right to marry.

    Comment by Mark Alan — February 18, 2009 @ 10:27 am - February 18, 2009

  205. Jennifer,

    You keep dodging the truth. You are not discriminated against with marriage. you may marry any one person of the opposite sex, subject to state requirements. Just like every other American citizen.

    Or is it your belief that women should not have paid materinty leave because it’s discrimitory to men as we can’t get pregnant?

    Comment by The Livewire — February 18, 2009 @ 10:34 am - February 18, 2009

  206. SCOTUS has been wrong before. Many times. Ask Dred Scott. And in the Loving decision they weren’t asked to determine whether gender difference was a supportable legal standard.

    As for the other “implicit” characteristics you attribute to the court in Loving, solid legal arguments have been advanced in support of each of those. Unlike the situation with gay marriage, where no one, on this thread or elsewhere, has ever advanced a solid legal argument to bar the privilege. Hell, no one even tries – they just fall back on “traditional definitions” and “god doesn’t like it” or “homos are icky”. Those aren’t legal arguments, and the one you just made isn’t either.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 10:34 am - February 18, 2009

  207. You keep dodging the truth.

    Oh really? Then let’s hear your legal reasoning – based not on your “faith” or your “opinion” about gay people – about why same sex marriage shouldn’t be legal. What is it about this specific contract, that when entered into by parties with these specific genitals, is so onerous that the state should prohibit it?

    Do tell; don’t dodge.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 10:40 am - February 18, 2009

  208. No, Jennifer, and even though it’s probably a waste of time to try and explain this to someone of your pronounced intellectual limitations, I will attempt to lay it out.

    The case for preserving traditional, committed, monogamous heterosexual marriage is that this arrangement is uniquely beneficial to society in a way that other relationships among people are not. The traditional model provides the ideal environment for the raising of children, models socially beneficial behavior, models committed male-female relationships for the 96% of children who are heterosexual and should strive for such relationships, and contributes to social stability. It is the only model relationship that benefits society in all of these ways, and that is why it is entitled to unique privilege.

    There is a place in society for committed same-sex relationships and for heterosexual relationships that do not result in children, but marriage is unique, and society benefits when it is strengthened, not when it is watered down.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 10:42 am - February 18, 2009

  209. And the legal argument is that marriage is a social institution, and that the people alone have the right to define social institutions, and to use the democratic processes in determining the legal status of individuals within those institutions. For the state to usurp the people’s ability to do so is a gross abuse of power.

    Even though I personally oppose gay marriage, for reasons state previously, I would grudgingly accept it if it came about through democratic means, and not on the social whims of a handful of judges.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 10:54 am - February 18, 2009

  210. V the K – according to your definition, we should be denying the privilege of marriage to people past reproductive age, since society will reap none of those unique benefits of child-rearing. According to your own definition, old people fail to meet the standard. And yet, so long as they have different genitals, they’re good to go.

    You’ve also tossed out a canard about “watering down” marriage without in any way explaining how allowing even more people access to the privilege would do that. Do you think heteros who want to have kids will stop getting married if gays can do it, too? What’s your evidence for that assumption?

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 11:00 am - February 18, 2009

  211. I’m still puzzled that after all the rays of light and illuminating sunshine that ILC has provided you, AE, you can still maintain that gays can’t reproduce. (smile) They can; creatively in some cases, too. Marriage is only about reproduction between a man and woman? I thought marriage was all about stability, passing on societal values, controling conduct on the part of either party, etc. To reduce it to just procreation seems to shortchange all the positive influences that marriage can have on a union.

    Here’s an honest question for you: what’s the difference in determining whether one can “reproduce” if it’s a single women securing donor sperm, a barren women securing a donor egg and donor sperm, a single guy hiring a surrogate and impregnanting her, two guys hiring a surrogate and both providing mixed donor sperm for her eggs fertilized outisde the womb or a single guy asking his best female friend to have his baby with no strings attached?

    Because in all 5 examples, I think the single person has procreated outside of the bonds of marriage or the traditional familial unit. Why should that offspring be less protected in our society than kids procreated or adopted within a conventional marriage.

    Gay people can procreate with or without the help of medicine and they’re doing it outside the bonds of matrimony in many states… blessed with the benefits of marriage in other states.

    When I look at my sons I think we, as a gay couple, have procreated with 2 of them… and with the help of science and lawyers. I think that same thing of other gays who have pursued pregnancies. It doesn’t matter that my guys got the egg first… it is still our son and it’s our family. We did procreate; it was our conscientious decision; we are gay. Was a woman part of our marriage? No. Do we both feel deeply indebted to her? Yes. Is it our son? Yes. Is it her son? No. Would we have done if we had been in a conventionally-sanctioned married? Yes.

    We didn’t get into for validation from society, AE. We didn’t do it because we needed to “belong” to the mainstream culture, as some of our more liberal gay friends have suggested in the past. We did, in the final and only analysis, because we knew we could make life better for our family by enriching our family’s life with kids.

    It’s why when our community talks about gay marriage and society has already given them all the benefits of a conventional marriage in laws codifying same sex unions (like California), I wonder if it isn’t all about validation for them. But then, that doesn’t motivate my interests. I’d like our union to secure the federal benefits of the state of marriage… after that, we can call it anything those who oppose SSM want to call it… within reason.

    Marriage is a lot more than just the union of one man and one woman for the purposes of procreation. That is so Catholic it’s almost barbaric.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 18, 2009 @ 11:05 am - February 18, 2009

  212. Jennifer,

    Since I’ve reiterated my point over and over, yet you can’t even articulate yours I don’t see the point of going over it again.

    Again, you can’t argue you’re denied the same privilege I’ve taken advantage of (well it’s taken advantage of me).

    Please come back when your point is more than ‘But I want it toooooooooo! And anyone who disagrees with me is a poopy-head’

    Comment by The Livewire — February 18, 2009 @ 11:26 am - February 18, 2009

  213. I don’t know if I can dumb this down enough for Jennifer to understand, but there is no escaping the fact that the dynamics in a homosexual relationship are profoundly different than those in a heterosexual relationship. i.e. two people of the same sex relate to each other differently than two people of different sexes so.

    So far, gay activists have show little interested in the monogamy and commitment aspects of marriage; their focus is solely on benefits. This is an outgrowth of the dynamic that in a same sex relationship, children are an option that can come about only through extensive effort. (Whereas, in a heterosexual relationship, a comparatively equal amount of effort must be undertaken to avoid having children.) Heterosexual marriage is rewarded specifically to encourage that stability, because the societal consequences of instability are severe.

    In a childless gay marriage, there is neither reason nor expectation of monogamy or stability. Indeed, the more honest of the gay activists contend that changing marriage into something more “flexible” is an explicit point of their agenda. (Re: Eric Erbelding “Men Are Pigs.”)

    So, instead of a commitment, a binding of families, marriage does in fact and effect become watered down to a legal agreement that enables people to access certain benefits. Society has already been damaged, perhaps irreparably, by the degradation of heterosexual marriage to this. I submit that it is time to push in the other direction.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 11:32 am - February 18, 2009

  214. And anyone who disagrees with me is a poopy-head’

    Fortunately, the enlightened discourse is still getting through, I see.

    GPW, you’re a complete wuss. Censoring comments because they reveal your regular crew’s utter inability to construct rational arguments and discuss them civilly – oh, the irony on this post of all posts, of allowing through the turnstile the hurlers of invective while barring those who have abstained and continued to discuss in good faith.

    What was that about “the left” unfairly labelling, censoring, repressing those on the poor downtrodden right? Squeak up.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 11:34 am - February 18, 2009

  215. O/T and not to tread over rough ground, but V offers at #191: “Michigan-Matt has called me a racist N-a-z-i”… I recall it was a racist nativist, V, and the appellation fit during the Immigration Reform debate when you did the America-for-Americans-damn-it-three-snap-dance, protested that Immigration Reform would make you “Mexico’s bitch” and claimed that illegals were taking good jobs away from our country’s young adults.

    If it was nazi, I apologize. I also apologize for not going back to the threads and that now ancient debate to investigate it. If you know that to be the case, I trust your honest judgment.

    As it turned out, Immigration Reform failed the political will of the moment. In hindsight, the very thing that soc-cons and the farRight demanded of “reform” –namely, kick out the illegals, build the wall higher, toughen immigration standards– won’t come to pass in Obama’s Administration… and maybe it wouldn’t have anyway given Obama is unweaving the accomplishments of Bush 43 faster than he can find an open teleprompter.

    In fact, Obama’s OMB guy, Peter Orazag, has made it clear that he thinks the wall construction project is dead, that ICE will likely be hit with a 10% force reduction and procurement reduction like DoD and he’s on record as noting that it seems “stupid to throw (illegal) people who are working out” of the country… we “should cheer they have a job and are contributing to the economy”.

    I doubt we would have witnessed the same under McCain’s or Romney’s OMB Director.

    Again, my apologies if I called you a nazi.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 18, 2009 @ 11:34 am - February 18, 2009

  216. And the legal argument is that marriage is a social institution, and that the people alone have the right to define social institutions,

    According to the constitution, they don’t have the right to define them in such a way that it reserves the benefits of those institutions to themselves while denying them to others without legal basis.

    This is just window dressing for one of the two most common “arguments” against legal marriage rights for gays: “we don’t like it and there are more of us than there are of you so you can’t have it.” It’s an argument that failed in the civil rights movement, and ultimately, it will fail in this case as well, no matter how many different frocks you dress it in or how many times you repeat it.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 11:40 am - February 18, 2009

  217. I would also turn the question around: How does extending marital benefits to same sex couples benefit society? Especially if there is no expectation of monogamy or commitment attached to those benefits?

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 11:42 am - February 18, 2009

  218. V the K – your monogamy and commitment argument is just another red herring.

    The law doesn’t step in when a partner in a marriage is unfaithful. It only gets involved when a partner unhappy with that files for divorce on those grounds. Until then, the monogamy and commitment of the parties is considered their own business.

    I know monogamous and committed gay couples, and unfaithful and not-so-committed straight ones. You’re tarring with a very broad brush here, to no good legal effect.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 11:50 am - February 18, 2009

  219. I know monogamous and committed gay couples, and unfaithful and not-so-committed straight ones.

    In other words, you concede that to gay couples, monogamy and commitment are irrelevant. And the only point in having marriage “rights” is to access benefits (and the “in yer face” to the C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n Right, of course), but there is no expectation that gay couples ought to provide a benefit to society to earn those benefits.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 12:08 pm - February 18, 2009

  220. Dan would be the kind of Jew to encourage the other folks in the concentration camp to work harder. After all, “our country needs us!”

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 12:26 pm - February 18, 2009

  221. Jennifer writes: “The law doesn’t step in when a partner in a marriage is unfaithful.”

    Umm, Jennifer, it’s called infidelity, it’s criminal and –at least in Michigan– the farLeft and Democrats were calling for the State GOP Atty Gen to be investigated for Infidelity when he disclosed (during a nasty blackmail attempt on a case) that he had engaged in extra-maritial relations with a woman. Heck, the Democrats and farLeft in Michigan didn’t even need a trial –they wanted a public lynching right then and there of the Atty General.

    Last year, in Michigan, a state Ct of Appeals panel held that adultery was indeed a crime equal to 1st degree sexual misconduct and punishable by life in prison.

    Granted, you’d have a hard time finding prosecutions on adultery by any sane prosecutor… but you know what? It’s there, nonetheless. And family law courts do recognize it as a legitimate ground for divorce. Some churches hold it is grounds for annulment of the marriage.

    The “law” may not step in often, but that billy club is raised and ready for a good ass-whoopin if need be.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 18, 2009 @ 12:30 pm - February 18, 2009

  222. In other words, you concede that to gay couples, monogamy and commitment are irrelevant.

    The only way anyone could reach that conclusion by reading what I wrote would be a) poor reading comprehension skills or b) willful dishonesty.

    I’m not sure which is the problem here; I’ll just note that observing that plenty of gay couples (who aren’t allowed to marry) display more fidelity and commitment than a lot of straight couples (who are allowed to marry) is not a “concession” to anything but reality.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 12:32 pm - February 18, 2009

  223. “Michigan-Matt has called me a racist N-a-z-i”… I recall it was a racist nativist, V…

    Oh my goodness gracious. It was “racist”, “Nativist”, “Nazi”, and several others, MM. And: it was V the K, TGC, NDT, and several others. Even our good Host, Bruce the Gay Patriot, whom I believe you at one point called a – now, what was it? – a “blue-blood neo-Nazi”. That would be the point when you had to be threatened with a ban, MM, for your name-calling.

    I love how the following merely repeats the offense, contradicting your later so-called apology:

    the appellation fit [you, V] during the Immigration Reform debate when you did the America-for-Americans-damn-it-three-snap-dance, protested that Immigration Reform would make you “Mexico’s bitch” and claimed that illegals were taking good jobs away from our country’s young adults.

    That is not a fair representation of the views V expressed in that debate. A similar situation to what I’m going through right now with AE: you both seem to believe that (1) your distortions, misinterpretations and misrepresentations of people are somehow reality, and (2) it then justifies your use of invective. Bzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 18, 2009 @ 12:41 pm - February 18, 2009

  224. Michigan Matt – point me to a case where the police just went out and arrested someone because their spouse complained about their infidelity, and we might be able to establish that it’s a problem the state really cares about. It doesn’t happen, because the state really doesn’t care; the state’s position is that if one of the partners is unhappy with the other partner’s behavior, then there’s a way to address that – by dissolving the contract through the courts.

    Certainly the state doesn’t deny marriage to same sex couples in any case by speculating that one party or the other lacks the necessary fidelity or committment, which is the standard that V the K argues exists. It simply doesn’t. If it did, you wouldn’t have people out there who have been married 8, 9, 10 times. If the state were to prohibit marriages based on the chance that one or the other partner might stray, there would be no marriage for anyone.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 12:45 pm - February 18, 2009

  225. Q: Should couples who have no intention of remaining monogamous nor committed have marriage rights?

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 12:49 pm - February 18, 2009

  226. Still can’t answer the question, eh Jennifer? How are you being denied the right to marry any one man you choose? Still waiting.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 18, 2009 @ 12:49 pm - February 18, 2009

  227. Livewire – you seem to think I’m gay.

    Perhaps you should read.

    You also seem to think that the state has some compelling interest in making sure that partners who enter into this one and only type of contract have different types of genitals. I haven’t seen you offer up what that compelling interest the state has in that particular, and I’ve been waiting a lot longer than you.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 12:54 pm - February 18, 2009

  228. I covered the “compelling interest” thing when I described the uniquely beneficial role of traditional heterosexual marriage to society.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 12:57 pm - February 18, 2009

  229. Granted, I did use many big words…

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 12:58 pm - February 18, 2009

  230. I covered the “compelling interest” thing when I described the uniquely beneficial role of traditional heterosexual marriage to society.

    You did? I wonder why, then, you failed to explain why we don’t deny people past reproductive age the right to marry.

    Just another dodge, I guess.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 1:03 pm - February 18, 2009

  231. I didn’t argue it because it was a stupid point. Elderly people are still part of the continuity of family within established and beneficial societal norms. I don’t have a problem with them marrying, although I think the social benefits of marriage should be limited to stable relationships that product children.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 1:18 pm - February 18, 2009

  232. None of which, of course, in any way refutes my point about the unique societal value of committed, monogamous heterosexual marriage. (Too many big words, I guess.)

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 1:20 pm - February 18, 2009

  233. I don’t have a problem with them marrying, although I think the social benefits of marriage should be limited to stable relationships that product children.

    What does that even mean? That old people should be able to marry, but somehow stripped of the “social benefits” of marriage? How do you propose to do that?

    As for it being a “stupid point”, you’re right, it is. It’s a stupid point made in response to your even stupider claim that marriage is all about reproduction, which any ninny can see it’s clearly not. It’s not restricted to those purposes, nor are the tax benefits, etc associated with raising children restricted to those within marriages.

    This has been quite fun, watching you flail around defining marriage as a “tradition” then as an incubator for raising children that is unchangeable and immutable. Particularly given that marriage originated – at least in the western world – as ownership. The bride-price and all of that. A father would “sell” access to reproduction with his daughter to another man by “giving” her in marriage – in return for goods or service. The societal “benefit” was that the male who bought the bride had better assurance that the woman’s offspring would be his own – that she wouldn’t be “stealing” from his labors to raise the offspring of another man. Why do you think the penalties for female infidelity have always been so outsized compared to those for male infidelity?

    And that’s only in the west. In Polynesia, “marriage” was determined by which man’s hut a woman chose to live in. If she got fed up with him, she moved to another hut, and they were thus divorced. In Nepal and Tibet, polyandry was practiced. In the marginal environment, two husbands allowed a family to eke out a subsistence, while each had equal likelihood of siring offspring.

    You want to pretend that this is something that is carved in stone, ageless and immutable. It isn’t, and your penny ante definitions of “reproductive ability” and other rubbish don’t change that central fact. Marriage, as it is practiced in the west, started out as ownership. It has become something different over thousands of years – so much for “traditional marriage”.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 1:33 pm - February 18, 2009

  234. No, Jennifer, you’re arguing that it doesn’t. *sigh* Or rather you’re saying ‘I can’t defend my point, so it must be right’

    It doesn’t matter what your plumbing is, or orientation is. My flawed assumption is that you can actually debate. Sorry for making that mistake.

    Maybe you need to sit through that LA City college class. No, wait, you need to learn how to defend an arguement. That wouldn’t help.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 18, 2009 @ 1:35 pm - February 18, 2009

  235. Ah hah! I just found out why Jennifer can’t defend a paper bag, let alone her point.

    She’s still believing that Marriage = Slavery, see 228

    Comment by The Livewire — February 18, 2009 @ 1:38 pm - February 18, 2009

  236. The only thing funnier to me than watching a “gay conservative” flail around attempting to justify discriminating against those who share his sexual orientation is watching the Mormons mince around pretending that their church actually believes in “traditional marriage.” News flash: they never actually suspended the principle of polygamy, and Church fathers continued the practice in secret long after the “official condemnation” was issued. Just because they’ve wormed their way into the “50s nostalgia”/Cleaver family section of the American heart doesn’t mean they don’t have a background kinkier than anything you’ll find in any gay community.

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 1:38 pm - February 18, 2009

  237. *yawn* Didn’t you get enough Mormon bashing during the ‘want to H8? vote against 8’ campaign, Apikores?

    Comment by The Livewire — February 18, 2009 @ 1:41 pm - February 18, 2009

  238. Actually, I’ve never before commented on the Internet about Mormonism and gay marriage. I guess you have enough spare time from not reading Jennifer’s responses left to make assumptions about me, though.

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 1:43 pm - February 18, 2009

  239. Oh, Dear Lord, why do I bother arguing with the irretrievably obtuse? Marriage is not “all about reproduction.” Two stray dogs can reproduce. I am talking about the continuity of family, of values, of civilization itself. I care about these things. But defending them to people who only care about their selfish needs… be it for validation, or for some other tangible benefit, is futile.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 1:43 pm - February 18, 2009

  240. Ah hah! I just found out why Jennifer can’t defend a paper bag, let alone her point.

    Seeing as this is what you define as “debate”, it’s no wonder you can’t argue on the facts, or recognize when someone else is.

    No, Jennifer, you’re arguing that it doesn’t. *sigh* Or rather you’re saying ‘I can’t defend my point, so it must be right’

    I’m arguing that it doesn’t what? If you have a point, it’s unclear, as usual.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 1:46 pm - February 18, 2009

  241. “Mormon bashing.”
    LOL. You want Mormon bashing, go look up how Joseph Smith died. This is just some random person on the internet pointing out the hypocrisy of a church that’s done more than any other organization in America to redefine marriage lending its massive clout to support an effort on behalf of “traditional marriage.” None of the snide comments you can make can change the facts–it is apparent to me from your “discussion” with Jennifer that you’re not really here to argue, just to snipe. So I don’t really see the point in wasting my time by engaging you.

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 1:46 pm - February 18, 2009

  242. News flash: they never actually suspended the principle of polygamy

    The official church position is that polygamy is condemned. But if liberals couldn’t lie, we’d never hear from them.

    I note there is no similar condemnation from the gay community on the depravity that goes on in public at Folsom Street Fair.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 1:47 pm - February 18, 2009

  243. I am talking about the continuity of family, of values, of civilization itself.

    And allowing gays to marry does what to affect continuity of family or civilization itself? Destroy it? Define, please. No need to define “values”, which has been the crux of your baseless arguments all along. We all know what you mean when you say “values”: “god doesn’t like the icky homos and so they shouldn’t be allowed to get married.”

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 1:49 pm - February 18, 2009

  244. Jennifer, I’m through running around in circles with you. You don’t get it. You prove the point of the original post by refusing to consider any other viewpoint than your own. You’re hopelessly narrow-minded and can’t see anything beyond, “I want it, so I should have it and if you disagree, you’re a hater.” You don’t think that any value other than getting what you want matters. I don’t think you have the mental capacity to understand there are things greater than personal gratification. So, it’s pointless to continue.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 1:55 pm - February 18, 2009

  245. Yes, it is pointless to continue flinging weak-assed “but but but…I DON’T LIKE IT” arguments around.

    You’ve failed in every attempt to express even ONE legal basis for restricting marriage to heterosexual unions only. And it’s not for lack of trying – you’ve ridden both of the usual hobbyhorses till they’re dripping in sweat.

    And still…nothing but FAIL.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 1:59 pm - February 18, 2009

  246. Ah, yes, the logic of ‘I can’t defend my arguement, so i’ll make you defend the status quo, then I’ll deny any fact you give and still won’t defend my position. Then I’ll declare victory.’

    You -do- go to Los Angeles City College, don’t you?

    V the K, I knew you had the polygamy link, I just thought I’d help you out with the anti-mormon bashing.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 18, 2009 @ 2:11 pm - February 18, 2009

  247. ‘I can’t defend my arguement, so i’ll make you defend the status quo, then I’ll deny any fact you give and still won’t defend my position. Then I’ll declare victory.’

    Pretty much.

    And, thanks for sticking up for my peeps, Livewire.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 2:24 pm - February 18, 2009

  248. A laughable rejoinder. The original order rescinding polygamy was phrased in a way that made it perfectly clear that the “revelation” still stood and that Woodruff was simply giving in to the political pressures of his time. If the Mormon Church actually DID condemn polygamy, then why did it continue for so long after Woodford’s decree and why do young Mormons today continue to drop out of the official LDS church and involve themselves with fundamentalist groups? The obvious answer to anyone who doesn’t have their head stuck in some hole in the ground labeled “conservative” is because the Mormon Church is more concerned with what they claim to be the revelations of God than they are with the US view of polygamy. If I believed these revelations to be true, I’d take the same standpoint–but it’s dishonest to say that the LDS Church has completely disavowed the principle of polygamy. They know bad PR when they see it, which is why Woodruff and the other high-ranking Church leaders kept their gigantic families a secret after the 1890 Manifesto stated that “Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I heareby declare my intention to submit to those laws, to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.”
    This is obviously not exactly a fire-and-brimstone condemnation of polygamy, so perhaps you can understand why some people are a little skeptical when it comes to Mormon opposition of same-sex marriage. Or, then again, you seem like a pretty bigoted, arrogant, and uneducated person, so probably you can’t. Either way, it wouldn’t hurt you read up a little on the early history of the LDS church and to stop flinging irrelevant ad hominem tu quoque allusions to whatever gay pride parade you people are raining on this week. I don’t know what the fair you’re talking about is and frankly I don’t care, because it was a lame-ass attempt to change the subject and I’m not going to let you off the hook that easy.

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 5:25 pm - February 18, 2009

  249. I guess by “his peeps” V in the K is making a reference to the common expression used by African-Americans. Now that they’re finally allowed into the priesthood and no longer considered subhuman, are you all going to start sprinkling your speech with ghetto-isms? Or is the idea for them to become a “white and delightsome” people, in which case the movement would be going in the opposite direction…Curious. Just make sure God doesn’t mistake you for a Negro, or else you might not get to become God of another planet yourself.

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 5:33 pm - February 18, 2009

  250. Hey, Dan, I’m curious…when they have conservative conventions like CPAC, blogger or otherwise, do they let you gay conservatives near the kids? Or are you segregated off into your own little area “for everyone’s safety”? Just wondering how they reconcile their “gays are going to convert our children” mentality with their gagging, reluctant quasi-acceptance of groups such as Log Cabin Republicans and other “gay conservative” associations.

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 5:37 pm - February 18, 2009

  251. Really, I don’t know what you feel like has not been “defended”.

    What we have here is a situation in which citizens who shoulder the same responsibilities as all others in regards to citizenship, taxation, expectation of being law-abiding, etc etc etc, are being told, “no, you have no access to this one particular privilege set up by the state because, we checked, and you each have the same type of genitals,” even though we’re supposed to offer equal access to privileges unless there is a solid legal basis for not doing so, (i.e. infringement upon rights of others, physical or financial damage to others), as in the case of the blind applicant for a driver’s license.

    No one on this thread has advanced such basis.

    We’ve danced around “traditional definition of marriage”, which, as pointed out, if you go far enough back, was “ownership”, and we’ve had the specious “ability to reproduce” argument, which imposes no current limitation on people entering a contract of marriage so long as they have different types of genitals, so it clearly isn’t what defines a marriage either, we’ve had the “most of us don’t like it so too bad” argument, dressed up in lots of frippery but always the same underneath it all, someone slipped up and even tried to introduce the “values” argument, which is a coda for legislating according to religious belief, but what we’ve not had is even one credible legal argument contra same sex marriage.

    Look, just because you can’t figure out what constitutes a legal argument and what doesn’t, it doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been fully explained. You just continue to assault it with the same tired non-legal BS above.

    My basis of argument is “this is what the constitution – the law of the land – says is our ideal. We treat people equally unless doing so infringes upon the rights of others or causes them physical or property damage.” I’m not sure what your basis of argument is, since you’ve tried and discarded so many, but none of them draws on the constitution, which is, you know, supposed to be the foundation for our laws. That apparently is such a lofty concept that it totally eludes those of you who would rather appeal to nebulous concepts such as “tradition” or really weak protestations of how when you outnumber someone, you should be able to dictate their rights and privileges.

    I totally expect you to now claim you still don’t get it, I’m just a dummy who can’t see how “tradition” totally trumps the constitution and its ideals, and you know, I completely believe you are incapable of grasping how completely devoid you are of the understanding of constitutional law.

    And for GPW upthread, where you appended my comments: I find it interesting that you consider a strictly legal argument an example of “hatred” by proponents of gay marriage against its opponents, particularly when the one advancing said legal argument may be the sole person in the discussion who hasn’t been posting personal insults in place of, you know, an actual argument. It’s ironic, in an Alanis Morrisette kind of way.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 5:48 pm - February 18, 2009

  252. Howdy, Dan!

    This just in from the California Legislature: the Judiciary Committee, by a wide margin, finds that Proposition 8 proponents usurped the legislature’s role, and the Proposition should have never been presented to the people:

    http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/18/1n18gaywed235419-legislators-target-gay-marriage-b/?uniontrib

    And they never once used the word “hater.” 🙂

    I guess, consistent with your professed respect for the legislature, you can get behind gay marriage now.

    Right?

    Right?

    Comment by Barry E. — February 18, 2009 @ 6:17 pm - February 18, 2009

  253. jennifer–you are clearly smarter than any of these morons “arguing” against you. i wouldn’t waste your time.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 18, 2009 @ 6:31 pm - February 18, 2009

  254. Barry, actually, no. First the people need repeal Prop 8. As the legislature should have asked the pepole to repeal Prop 22 before they acted.

    And, um, Jennifer, did you even read my post or my comments, I don’t consider a strictly legal argument for gay marriage hatred. So, read my stuff before commenting.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 18, 2009 @ 7:02 pm - February 18, 2009

  255. Well, if putting Proposition 8 on the ballot was itself unconstitutional, then the “people” need not repeal it.

    But since you keep on wanting to skirt the actual law in our discussions, we’ve reached an impasse.

    Ever feel like you’re sitting on the sidelines, sniping, while the future is developing all around you?

    This debate is going to be academic in the near future. Your way of thinking is indeed antediluvian. Equal protection cannot be trumped by majority vote.

    It’s about “freedom,” fairness,” and “privacy.” The things you claim to champion for the “millions of gay patriots” out there — while you shuffle them off into the corner, to await table scraps.

    You observe: “Fifteen years ago, maybe even ten, only a handful of people in this country would think that marriage referred to anything but a monogamous union between one man and one woman.” Thank god there are prople out there who are content to work for change, rather than sit back, happy with second-class status.

    Comment by Barry E. — February 18, 2009 @ 7:26 pm - February 18, 2009

  256. Hmmm. . . several of my posts don’t seem to be getting through your filter. . . .

    Comment by Barry E. — February 18, 2009 @ 7:29 pm - February 18, 2009

  257. Your response to comment #20:
    [Um, then, Jennifer, since it’s such a losing argument, why can’t that who oppose it take it apart without insulting those putting it forward? Why do they resort to ad hominem attacks which is, uh, the point of this post to which you have attached your comment. –Dan]

    and your response to comment #74:
    [So, it’s the defenders of the traditional definition who have to justify themselves? Why don’t those who seek to change the long-standing definition of this ancient institution need make the case for the social change they advocate? For that it is the entire point of this post–that gay marriage advocates need advocate for gay marriage, make an argument rather than insult their opponents.]

    …neither of which contained ad hominems or insults against opponents of gay marriage, rather only pointed out why they were wrong. If pointing out that someone is wrong and why is going to be labelled an insult or ad hominem, then just be honest and say your position is X and you’re not interested in hearing opposing views.

    As for who has done a more effective job of advocating the issue, only one of us has presented an argument with a legal basis.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 7:29 pm - February 18, 2009

  258. I am sure the millions of black, Hispanic, and Asian members of the LDS church are a much better testimony to the inclusiveness of the church than the rantings of one hateful, ignorant gay leftists.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 7:30 pm - February 18, 2009

  259. I am sure the millions of black, Hispanic, and Asian members of the LDS church are a much better testimony to its inclusiveness than the rantings of one hateful, ignorant gay leftist.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 7:31 pm - February 18, 2009

  260. I am sure the millions of black, Hispanic, and A-s-i-a-n members of the L-D-S c-h-u-r-c-h are a much better testimony to its inclusiveness than the rantings of one hateful, ignorant gay leftist.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2009 @ 7:32 pm - February 18, 2009

  261. Yup, V the K, the Mornom Church is filled with love for teh gays. And, as of the 1970’s, the descendents of Cain, too.

    Is an affinity for revisionist history a church tenet? Because — at least for some things — you saints seem to have very short memories.

    Ever read Reynolds v. U.S.? Supreme Court opinion from the latter part of the 1800’s? You should: I’d like to see if you think that case was fairly decided. . . .

    Comment by Barry E. — February 18, 2009 @ 7:43 pm - February 18, 2009

  262. I’ll give you my take: I used to think the case was wrongly decided. I used to think that the Supreme Court was taking a very cramped, and bigoted view towards the marriage practices of the Mormons.

    After Prop 8, and your church’s oppressive (and — in my opinion — _illegal_) interloping, I don’t have a problem with it. I see what jerks you guys can be when it comes to the rights of other minorities, and you’ll find no further sympathies, on anything, from me. Sorry for the “hate.” Deal with it.

    I hope the Church’s tax-exempt status will be reviewed, but I’m not holding my breath. Get involved politically, and you shouldl have to take the political heat.

    Comment by Barry E. — February 18, 2009 @ 7:51 pm - February 18, 2009

  263. BTW — the “disavowal” of polygamy only occurred after “the man” came down on them, so there’s not a whole lot of nobility to be claimed in the abandonment of the practice (even though I, personally, don’t have a problem with it. Or didn’t, until last year.)

    And we won’t even mention the FLDS, because — of course — there is absolutely no cooperation or common cause between the splinter groups and the main church, riiiiiiight?

    Comment by Barry E. — February 18, 2009 @ 7:56 pm - February 18, 2009

  264. Hahahahhaha…wow, he thinks I’m gay. Funny. Chalk another one up for the “ignorant” column. Surprise surprise…straight folks actually support gay marriage too. You can parade your token minorities in front of me as “evidence” of the LDS Church’s new-found racial tolerance, but none of what you say can change the views of Brigham Young, the history of Mormonism in the US refusing to grant the priesthood to African-American men, and the racism implicit in Mormon scripture–“a white and delightsome people” sound familiar? But I’m sure you’re not interested in talking about that, just as you’re not interested in rebutting any of my points. No, you’re just going to accuse me of being…*gasp*…a FAGGOT! Oh NOOEEEEESSS!!!

    Truly, utterly, pathetic. You’re doing great PR work for your church right now.

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 8:39 pm - February 18, 2009

  265. Since Jennifer and the rest of her fellow leftists seem to be ignoring this, I repost my challenge to them.

    So, get down to showing some hard facts and evidence about how you personally will suffer irreparable physical or financial harm if everyone is treated equally under the law, and you might have something of interest to say.

    So Jennifer; explain how you personally suffer irreparable physical or financial harm if “everyone is treated equally under the law” — which means allowing child marriage, incestuous marriage, plural marriage, marriage to animals, and all other forms of marriage that are currently banned.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 18, 2009 @ 8:41 pm - February 18, 2009

  266. Meanwhile, none of the other “straight defenders” seem eager to bring up the fact that they support five year old children being taught gay sex in schools.

    Come on, Apikores. After all, you insist that all Mormons are racist. You should realize that all gays and their defenders support sexualization of kindergarteners by the same logic.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 18, 2009 @ 8:46 pm - February 18, 2009

  267. You’ve got to be kidding me. That link is referring to one institution in Britain that was dealing with ten to twelve schools. To infer from there that all defenders of gay marriage support “teaching gay sex to five-year-olds” is contemptibly ignorant logic and shows a mind completely devoid of basic concepts such as empiricism and the impropriety of generalization. I shouldn’t even bother responding to it because right now we’re discussing gay marriage in America, and this is just a big fat red herring. However, it serves to illustrate your utter failure to grasp basic concepts of logic and argument, so it’s worth noting.

    Likewise, to continue pointing out your sad parody of logic, I have never said that “all Mormons are racist.” So I don’t even know what that statement is supposed to mean or how one could conceivably be expected to defend a sentiment one doesn’t hold and has never professed to hold. This is just sad. Between Jennifer and me there’s more cognitive activity going on in this thread than will ever take place over the sum of all of your sad, pitiful, fear-bound minds. Run and go find me something I actually said that you disagree with, and maybe I’ll argue with you. But right now we’re not even working on the same level, buddy.

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 8:59 pm - February 18, 2009

  268. That was too easy.

    To infer from there that all defenders of gay marriage support “teaching gay sex to five-year-olds” is contemptibly ignorant logic and shows a mind completely devoid of basic concepts such as empiricism and the impropriety of generalization.

    And yet:

    You can parade your token minorities in front of me as “evidence” of the LDS Church’s new-found racial tolerance, but none of what you say can change the views of Brigham Young, the history of Mormonism in the US refusing to grant the priesthood to African-American men, and the racism implicit in Mormon scripture – “a white and delightsome people” sound familiar?

    You’ve made it clear that a) all Mormons are racist and b) that nothing they say or do will ever prove otherwise. But when it comes to having your own “logic” applied to you, you start whining about “contemptibly-ignorant logic” and “the impropriety of generalization”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 18, 2009 @ 9:15 pm - February 18, 2009

  269. Meanwhile, as far as talking about marriage, leftists like yourself have already made it clear what they want recognized as marriage.

    Look at that. Child-parent relationships, sibling relationships, and, quote, “households with more than one conjugal partner” all should have marriage rights according to you and your fellow leftists.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 18, 2009 @ 9:18 pm - February 18, 2009

  270. And finally, we should realize the kind of rhetoric towards gays that you and your fellow Obama Party members fully endorse and support.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 18, 2009 @ 9:21 pm - February 18, 2009

  271. Barry, did you apologize yet? Acknowledge your error. Haven’t had time to read all the new comments today so I may have missed it.

    Sorry, Barry in #250, I don’t think it was unconstitutional to place this on the ballot. It’s pretty clear it is, but we’ve seen courts twist the original understanding of their constitutions to fit their particular needs.

    Skirting the law, huh?

    Working for change? Second class citizens? Hardly. I’m not one, don’t see myself as one and the law doesn’t make me one.

    Keep throwing out the silly little slogans, Barry and please address the points I’ve made. And quit it with your insults. And please acknowledge your errors.

    Your entire form of argument is to trot out the slogans used by the gay left to smear the gay right. And to make assumptions about us which have no basis in reality.

    If I missed your apology, I’m sorry, but if you’re a decent man you’d admit your error and apologize.

    Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — February 18, 2009 @ 9:24 pm - February 18, 2009

  272. North Dallas – you’ve not said anything that merits a response. Sorry. If you want to have a serious discussion, raise a serious point.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 9:45 pm - February 18, 2009

  273. Dude, you need to go back to school. the comparison you just made is so way off that it’s actually kinda sad. Nowhere in the paragraph that you quoted did I ever say that all Mormons are racist or that “nothing they can do will change it.” All I was doing is pointing out the legitimate, widely-accepted historical fact that the LDS Church has a problematic history with respect to African-Americans. I will be the first to admit that there are plenty of admirable and wonderful Mormons who are just as tolerant or more tolerant than the average American. Unfortunately, not too many of them are frequenting this blog.

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 10:00 pm - February 18, 2009

  274. LOL. Now he’s quoting Louis Farrakhan. This is what we’re expected to argue against? Come on. I’m sure you guys can do better.

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 10:02 pm - February 18, 2009

  275. Ah, such hatred from Apikores. It must be so difficult being a self hating straight. You have my pity.

    Jennifer, you can’t address a point. 268 posts and nothing but ‘your’e wrong, neener neener neener’ Those debate tactics may fly with your alum at LACC, but they don’t work past the 5th grade in the real world.

    Sad really, to see such hatred from the left.

    As to that judiciary committee thing, wow, the government just said the people don’t have the right to govern themselves. Amazing. And sad that ANYONE endorses that.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 18, 2009 @ 10:18 pm - February 18, 2009

  276. Lolllllllllll. A “self hating straight.” As my girlfriend will attest to later tonight, I have absolutely no problem with being straight, my friend. Unlike you, I am confident enough in my own sexuality and the strength of my relationship with a woman to have no problem seeing the similarities between committed gay and straight relationships. Feel free to pity me, but ultimately the joke’s on you.

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 10:24 pm - February 18, 2009

  277. wow, what an uproar. So, we see that some evil liberals do resort to lame accusations of hate. But others have attempted to have an intelligent discussion and are met with the usual chorus of “I’m right and you’re stupid” from AE, “all liberal gays are depraved sex fiends” from NDT and a strong defense for their nonsense from V (along with the lie that all gays hate Christians and the LDS) and Livewire. And a large helping of “I’ll twist what you say so I can call you stupid or other insults” from all 4 mentioned about. ILC, I know you’re not a liberal but it’s been interesting to watch you get undeservedly attacked as if you were. It’s all a perfect illustration of the fact that when it comes to emotion packed personal issues neither side has a monopoly on unreasonableness and “hate”, though of course both will screech in denial of that fact.

    Oh, AE if you’re going to refer to something I said try and make sure you actually understood it in the context it was written. There is no way that my words can be used, legitimately that is, to support your position on gay marriage.

    As far as the event that set this all off, the professor was out of line. If the speech was within the bounds of the assignment the guy should have been allowed to continue. I always advocate letting them spout their attacks, best to know what they really think as opposed to the smilely face they try to fool the world with. The student should open his eyes though, Alliance Defense is simply using him to advance their whine of the world hates Christianity. Freedom of speech is meaningless to them, it’s freedom of right wing religious speech they believe in.

    Comment by a different Dave — February 18, 2009 @ 10:27 pm - February 18, 2009

  278. If you’re worried about the sanctity of marriage leave the gays alone and start doing something about the 50% divorce rate. Start doing something about domestic violence. Start doing something about economic conditions that prevent people who love each other from staying together, whether it’s because they can’t afford marriage counseling or mental health treatment or addiction treatment or what have you. The fact that you people are so focused on gays as the symbol of “the death of traditional” marriage indicates how desperate you are to place the blame anywhere but at your own doorstep. If you’re pissed about the breakdown of marriage, go chastise Ted Haggard for smoking meth and having gay sex while being a pastor….somehow I doubt you guys were on the front lines of that story….

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 10:29 pm - February 18, 2009

  279. “Sad really, to see such hatred from the left.”

    yawn, apparently you define hate as some on the left do – anything said in disagreement with your position. What’s sad really, is that you and your cronies actually think you are being reasonable.

    Comment by a different Dave — February 18, 2009 @ 10:30 pm - February 18, 2009

  280. Now to catch up with some favorites in no particular order:

    I shouldn’t even bother responding to it because right now we’re discussing gay marriage in America, and this is just a big fat red herring.

    What do you call changing the subject to bashing Mormons? So far, you’ve bashed a Jew and a Mormon. Who’re you going after next? I wonder, Apikores, if you hold the same disdain for Islam.

    Dan would be the kind of Jew to encourage the other folks in the concentration camp to work harder.

    You’d be the one in the corner drinking your own piss and flinging shit at all passersby.

    It was “racist”, “Nativist”, “Nazi”, and several others, MM. And: it was V the K, TGC, NDT, and several others.

    Really? I don’t recall. I do recall MM’s hysterical rants about illegal immigration, but I guess I skipped past his comments. I tend not to read the long winded bloviations, no offense Dan.

    You actively hurt lots of people with what you do. If you’ve found comfort in the society of people who equate your relationships with screwing a dog,

    Barry E. shovels the bullshit “I used to be a conservative but…..” and then totally blows that lie to hell with idiotic liberal lying points. Let me guess, Barry, you’re an Astroturfer, right?

    I can’t help but notice that none of you, NONE, have yet advanced one single affirmative reason why treating same sex couples equally under the law….. blahblahblah, yakity smakity

    And I can’t help but notice that Jennifer has yet to stick to the subject of the original post. Essentially, Jennifer, Dan asked you first.

    No citizen’s “feelings” or “opinons” or, yes, even “religion” are more important than the equal treatment under the law of other citizens.

    Pardon me, aren’t feelings, opinions and even religion the basis for our laws? We don’t treat people equally under the law. Where’s the equality in Affirmitive Action which requires consideration of sex and skin color rather than skill and/or experience?

    SCOTUS has been wrong before.

    So why accept ANY decisions from SCOTUS? Why bother having them around if they’ve been wrong before? What’s the point?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 18, 2009 @ 10:44 pm - February 18, 2009

  281. Come on. I’m sure you guys can do better.

    Indeed I can. However, why waste the effort, given that what I’ve already done has left you and Jennifer unable to answer?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 18, 2009 @ 10:49 pm - February 18, 2009

  282. North Dallas – you’ve not said anything that merits a response. Sorry. If you want to have a serious discussion, raise a serious point.

    Translation: Jennifer can’t answer why or how she is personally affected by child marriage, animal marriage, plural marriage, and incestuous marriage — which, by her own logic, means that bans on any and all of them are wrong.

    Then again, we shouldn’t expect her logic to be logical. Like most so-called “straight allies”, what she’s doing is trying to cloak her antireligious bigotry and hate under the guise of “gay rights”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 18, 2009 @ 10:54 pm - February 18, 2009

  283. Nowhere in the paragraph that you quoted did I ever say that all Mormons are racist or that “nothing they can do will change it.”

    Again, emphasis mine:

    You can parade your token minorities in front of me as “evidence” of the LDS Church’s new-found racial tolerance, but none of what you say can change the views of Brigham Young, the history of Mormonism in the US refusing to grant the priesthood to African-American men, and the racism implicit in Mormon scripture–”a white and delightsome people” sound familiar?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 18, 2009 @ 10:58 pm - February 18, 2009

  284. LOL. My “Mormon-bashing” was its own comment, and for you to call it “changing the subject” is wrong in such a profound way that I can’t even begin to explain it. I take it from your user name that you’re one of the people who still hold the delusion that “conservatism” means keeping the government out of the bedroom. Take a look at the face of the Republican party in America, bud.

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 11:00 pm - February 18, 2009

  285. none of what he could say WOULD change Brigham Young’s views. Brigham Young’s views aren’t the views of most Mormons. The racism implicit in Mormon scripture is implicit just there–in the scripture. Not in the people. If you even bothered to read what I wrote then you’d see that I never ONCE said that all Mormons are racist. In fact, I went out of my way to say the opposite. i know you people love to fantasize about how us “libruls” are hateful and evil people who are just as bad as the racists we oppose, but now you’re just purposefully ignoring things I’ve said, and it’s not cool. No point in arguing with someone like that.

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 11:02 pm - February 18, 2009

  286. given that what I’ve already done has left you and Jennifer unable to answer?

    What, ND30, are you claiming, exactly, that I am “unable to answer”? Phrase it coherently and I’m happy to answer it for you, straight and clear (no pun intended.)

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 11:04 pm - February 18, 2009

  287. If you’re worried about the sanctity of marriage leave the gays alone and start doing something about the 50% divorce rate. Start doing something about domestic violence. Start doing something about economic conditions that prevent people who love each other from staying together, whether it’s because they can’t afford marriage counseling or mental health treatment or addiction treatment or what have you.

    Actually, isn’t it the churches and the religious organizations that have been so adamant about premarital counseling, avoiding divorce, and helping others?

    All of which, of course, you have derided as hateful Victorian superstition.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 18, 2009 @ 11:06 pm - February 18, 2009

  288. I do so love watching Apikores trying to deny that he ever said this.

    You can parade your token minorities in front of me as “evidence” of the LDS Church’s new-found racial tolerance, but none of what you say can change the views of Brigham Young, the history of Mormonism in the US refusing to grant the priesthood to African-American men, and the racism implicit in Mormon scripture–”a white and delightsome people” sound familiar?

    Too bad your hatemongering antireligious bigotry keeps tripping you up. Meanwhile, we know what you and your fellow “gay marriage” supporters think of black people.

    To date, I have received several phone calls from Blacks, both gay and straight, who were caught up in Westwood around the time of that march. From being called “niggers” to being accosted in their cars and told that it was because of “you people gays don’t have equal rights and you better watch your back,” these gays have lost their damn minds.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 18, 2009 @ 11:17 pm - February 18, 2009

  289. When have I ever tried to deny that I said that? You’re simply trying to equate it with me saying that all Mormons are racist, which is just not true. Your argument is morphing conveniently as I swat down each version, but it’s a stacked fight. What I said was provocatively phrased, perhaps, but NOWHERE in that paragraph is there anything about how “all Mormons are racist.” This is an imagined straw man, a figment of your imagination. As for your link about black people claiming to have been the victim of racism from gay people, if I saw substantive evidence indicating it were the case, I’d be pissed. As is, I think any of the racism directed at black people post prop-8 was predictable but nonetheless inexcusable. It’s not my civil rights that are being denied, so I don’t really feel that passionately about the issue, but I think this is one of those instances where a few extreme examples are being held up as representative of a large percentage of the american public. Nonetheless, the only mention of black people I’ve made in this thread has been to point out how they have historically been treated with inequity by the LDS church. I hardly see how you arrive at me agreeing with these alleged n-bomb droppers from that paltry evidence. Maybe, like some of the other ignorant conservatives on this thread, you think I’m gay and that I care about this issue passionately enough to harass people about it. You’re wrong.

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 11:29 pm - February 18, 2009

  290. Hah. If your link even worked, that is…Nice web skills.

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 11:34 pm - February 18, 2009

  291. “SCOTUS has been wrong before.” – TGC, I agree. It’s a ‘line’ and as such, a sure sign of a weak hand.

    Don’t get me wrong: I use it myself. I disagree with tons of SCOTUS decisions. But, right or wrong, what they say is constitutional reality. If they say (or, by their silence, imply) that it’s perfectly OK for the People to set qualifications and standards for State marriage licenses based on uncontrollable attributes like the couple’s ages, mental capacities, pre-existing kinship, or gender difference (or lack thereof) – then it is.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 18, 2009 @ 11:36 pm - February 18, 2009

  292. North Dallas – I don’t know what you’re bitching about me “answering” – I presented a full answer at #246, but perhaps you lack the reasoning powers to grasp what is actually quite a simple argument, clearly stated and based on constitutional law. If you’re referring to me being “unable” to answer to your stupid red herrings about incest and bestiality, it’s because as noted before, they don’t merit response since they’re merely an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that you can’t make an affirmative argument for prohibiting two consenting adults with the same type of genitalia from entering into a contractual agreement that is open to others with whom they share the responsibilities and burdens of citizenship. That’s all. They’re stupid “points” that point out nothing other than your lack of intellectual honesty or prowess. If you’d like to claim otherwise, then start out by explaining to all of us how an animal is going to enter into a legal contract with a human being. Do you tie the pen to his hoof or paw or flipper or whatever to help him sign his name? Or is a hoof or paw print the appropriate legal mark for a non-human with no concept of law to make on a contract? Seriously dude, you can’t be as stupid as this argument would suggest.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 18, 2009 @ 11:37 pm - February 18, 2009

  293. LOL….you say that all minority members in the LDS church are “tokens” and false “evidence”, as evinced by quotes. You say that their very scriptures are blatantly racist. You say that “nothing can change” the fact of Mormons being racist.

    But oh, no, never, you aren’t in the least saying that all Mormons are racist and that nothing can change that. (/sarc)

    And then you claim that the black people who publicly stated that they were racially harassed by gays were only “claiming” that, provided no “substantiative evidence”, and gave only “paltry” proof — which means you think they are lying.

    And no, I don’t think you’re gay; I think you’re an opportunist who hides behind gay people as an excuse for his own racist and antireligious bigotry.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 18, 2009 @ 11:44 pm - February 18, 2009

  294. I don’t think they’re lying. I think it’s a little rich to provide some “I heard people saying…” from a random person’s blog as if it were conclusive evidence. If I were trying to do it to prove one of my points, you’d be belittling her and talking shit, and you know it just as much as I do. This is not exactly a reliable source.

    well, you said about one correct thing. “you say that their very scriptures are blatantly racist.” but i think you’re inventing things. i did not say that “nothing can change the fact of Mormons being racist” and i went out of my way to say that many Mormons are lovely, tolerant people. so i think you’re just inventing BS and arguing against who you wish you were arguing against instead of me. i’d suggest you resolve these internal mental struggles before you work them out on me.

    Comment by Apikores — February 18, 2009 @ 11:51 pm - February 18, 2009

  295. Actually, Jennifer, again, you’re stalling. Here’s your argument from up above:

    My basis of argument is “this is what the constitution – the law of the land – says is our ideal. We treat people equally unless doing so infringes upon the rights of others or causes them physical or property damage.”

    And I simply asked you to tell me how child marriage, animal marriage, incestuous marriage, plural marriage, or every other form of marriage that is banned causes you personally physical or property damage, which is what you demanded above.

    So, get down to showing some hard facts and evidence about how you personally will suffer irreparable physical or financial harm if everyone is treated equally under the law, and you might have something of interest to say.

    Now remember, you have stated that tradition, the benefit of society, and everything else other than your personal physical or financial harm are irrelevant and unworthy reasons for banning marriage; therefore, unless you can explain to us how child marriage, animal marriage, plural marriage, or incestuous marriage harm you personally, you are being hypocritical when you support bans on any of those.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 18, 2009 @ 11:56 pm - February 18, 2009

  296. Oh, this gets even funnier.

    First, Apikores whines about the source I cited for the evidence that gay marriage supporters were namecalling and racially harassing blacks.

    If I were trying to do it to prove one of my points, you’d be belittling her and talking shit, and you know it just as much as I do. This is not exactly a reliable source.

    Of course, this is after he claims the link to the site didn’t work.

    Hah. If your link even worked, that is…Nice web skills.

    So question: how can he bash the website if he doesn’t even know its correct address or can’t link out to it?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2009 @ 12:00 am - February 19, 2009

  297. Well, ND30, it looks like their website is pretty unreliable. It seems to load for me every third time or so. At first it wouldn’t load at all for me, which is why I made the comment. Then, I tried it again, and it (gradually) loaded. I tested my internet and found it was capable of dling content at up to 4 meg/sec from a reputable server, so she must be using some POS hosting site. Either way, not my fault. And either way, she still doesnt exactly seem like an objective source, especially since she’s not even claiming it happened to herself. Basically what you’ve offered here is a rumor. Now you’re patting yourself on the back as if you’ve offered conclusive proof of racism among anti-Prop 8ers. Well, if this is the best proof you can offer, then congratulations….not for proving us libruls to be “the REEL racists” but rather for proving yourself to be a complete and total jackass.

    Comment by Apikores — February 19, 2009 @ 12:18 am - February 19, 2009

  298. Let me guess–it’s actually Obama’s fault. He doesn’t want people to know about this, so he’s sabatoging her website. You have all the evidence, in your book, which you’ll publish….if the liberal media will cover it!!! Spare me. I have better things to do than engage with your garbage.

    Comment by Apikores — February 19, 2009 @ 12:24 am - February 19, 2009

  299. That’s even more uproariously funny, Apikores.

    Mainly because you were saying this:

    As for your link about black people claiming to have been the victim of racism from gay people, if I saw substantive evidence indicating it were the case, I’d be pissed.

    Which was then followed by this:

    Hah. If your link even worked, that is…Nice web skills.

    So explain that: if the link didn’t work, how on earth were you commenting on it in a post that came five minutes BEFORE you posted the claim that it didn’t work at all?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2009 @ 12:24 am - February 19, 2009

  300. It’s pretty understandable, but I guess I’ll have to break it down into simple terms given how slow you are. Given as all I saw was a 404 error when I clicked the link, I stated that you hadn’t provided any “substantive evidence” indicating that this is the case. I think you agree that a 404 error falls outside the category of “substantive evidence”? Just let it go–they have a shitty host. It’s not my fault, it’s not yours, it’s hers.

    Comment by Apikores — February 19, 2009 @ 12:36 am - February 19, 2009

  301. Dan:

    I have nothing to apologize for.

    You’re a very sad man.

    Comment by Barry E. — February 19, 2009 @ 12:39 am - February 19, 2009

  302. LOL…and of course, like a good racist, Apikores throws a black woman under the bus and tries to blame her, her servers, and everything else for the fact that he got caught commenting on a blogpost which he claimed he didn’t see because the link didn’t work.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2009 @ 12:44 am - February 19, 2009

  303. The funny part is how Barry E and his fellow Obama Party members fully endorse and support both hateful speech about gays and bans on gay marriage, then go around trying to claim others are self-loathing.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2009 @ 12:48 am - February 19, 2009

  304. Oh, and as far as your claim that GPW is “hurting” gay people, Barry E, indeed he is; he’s demonstrating to the world that people like you and your fellow gay marriage supporters who take toddlers to sex fairs and demand that gay sex be taught to five year olds are merely using your sexual orientations to cover up the fact that you’re very, very sick people.

    Perhaps you and your fellow supporters of sexualizing children should take some responsibility for what your needs and your attempts to blame them on being gay have done.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2009 @ 12:52 am - February 19, 2009

  305. Wow, you’re really quite desperate to just declare victory and move on, aren’t you? Must be a conservative trait. Unfortunately, you didn’t “catch” me doing anything other than calling you out for offering a link that was BROKEN at the time you sent it out and that only fixed itself 20 or 30 minutes later. So you can gloat and smirk and take advantage of the fact that she’s using a shitty host to somehow accuse me of being a racist for pointing this out (hey, you’re the one who aired her in the first place, so dont complain about me) but youre just going to make yourself look like more of a jackass than you already have. And thats quite an accomplishments. Kudos. Or as you guys say, I guess, “Dittoes.”

    Comment by Apikores — February 19, 2009 @ 12:59 am - February 19, 2009

  306. *an accomplishment

    Comment by Apikores — February 19, 2009 @ 1:00 am - February 19, 2009

  307. Well, I’m off to go work on the basis of a potential heterosexual, reproductive marriage. I hope you guys all pray for me. Gnight!

    Comment by Apikores — February 19, 2009 @ 1:54 am - February 19, 2009

  308. First, Barry E., just caught your comment #193. Wow, guy, you do want to put a smile on my face. Don’t you? How many assumptions have you made about me? How many of them demonstrably false? How many could be corrected just by reading this blog on a regular basis?

    And no, Barry, no, I don’t believe the “minor few” (advocates of gay marriage) are emblematic of the entire movement as a whole. You’d know that if you read this blog. But, I dare say you didn’t bother to follow the links in comment #182. Did you bother to read any of my posts where I praised a number of people, notably Jonathan Rauch and Dale Carpenter, but also Catherine Thienmann as well as NGLTF (for its ad campaign during the Texas referendum) and even “No on 8” (for its first ad which I quite liked). I’m not going to go to the trouble of providing links this time, but the posts are there. My archives are available and easily searchable.

    I’m just not going to go to the trouble of tracking them down for someone who is not interested in my point of view, but seems instead interested in using me as a target on which to project his own animosities.

    Once again, you’re telling me what I believe. If you read my posts, you’ll see that I have a style that is rhetorical. I had thought that the word, “some,” the third word of the post would serve to define those marriage advocates I was critiquing throughout the posts, so I didn’t use it with my concluding flourish. After all, it’s consistent with my past posts on marriage (which you’re free to read if you truly want to know what I believe. Like I said, my archives are available and easily searchable.)

    As to your claim that I addressed the “equal protection” argument in the post, all I can do is ask, “I did?” The point of the post wasn’t the merits of the arguments for gay marriage, but the narrow rhetoric of some gay marriage advocates and the failure of all too many to make a strong case for extending the benefits of state recognition of this institution to same-sex couples. And that is the argument I presented in this post, not just this post, but others I have penned, er, pixeled. Something you might know if you actually read my past posts. For, like I said, my archives are available and easily searchable.

    You say my arguments are retrograde, fine, fine, say that. But, then, you keep misrepresenting my arguments. So, I don’t think you’re in much of a position to evaluate them.

    If you believe that it is only a few gay marriage advocates engage in hate speech, why don’t the heads of gay organizations condemn those few? It would certainly enhance their credibility with those who favor civil discourse on this serious issue. Why don’t you condemn them? Why can’t you say that they hurt the cause of gay marriage?

    Because, if you bothered to read my posts, you’d know that’s my point. And you might know that if you read those posts. For, like I said, my archives are available and easily searchable.

    As to the point about the legislature. And this is something I’ve addressed at least once before (which you would know if you read my posts as my archives are available and easily searchable). Had the legislature passed gay marriage before the citizens voted on it, then I would see it as legitimate. Go read my posts on how New York has addressed the issue. I provided the link to those posts in comment #182.

    And please tell me, how my blog is a milder flavor of the Salt Lake City Tribune ad? I, for one, don’t see the similarity.

    I have to tell you I’ve felt this animated, this engaged in a while. I really do enjoy responding to your comments. Maybe shooting fish in a barrel is fun after all.

    Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — February 19, 2009 @ 2:20 am - February 19, 2009

  309. And pray tell, Barry E., how am I sad man? Where do you get that idea?

    Nothing to apologize for, you say in #293? Nothing to apologize for? Oh, Barry, come now. I’ve pointed out errors you made in comments #166, #177 and just now #193, you were wrong. You make claims about me which just weren’t true. I even pulled some of your comments leveling false charges against me out of the spam filter.

    Don’t you think a man should apologize when he makes a mistake?

    Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — February 19, 2009 @ 2:25 am - February 19, 2009

  310. I take it from your user name that you’re one of the people who still hold the delusion that “conservatism” means keeping the government out of the bedroom. Take a look at the face of the Republican party in America, bud.

    Texas sodomy law – democrats

    Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell – democrats

    Defense of Marriage Act – democrats

    democrats don’t support gay marriage

    Screamin’ bigot Dean was a presidential front runner until he imploded then wound up head of the DNC hiring homophobes and firing gays.

    Chairman Obama surrounded himself with bigots and homophobes, refused to knowingly be in the same room with gays and refused to speak to the gay media etc. etc. etc.

    Take a look at the face of liberals in America, bud, and ask yourself why the self-loathing?

    Well, I’m off to go work on the basis of a potential heterosexual, reproductive marriage. I hope you guys all pray for me. Gnight!

    Enjoy your Aryan, athiest partner. I do pray for racist bigots, no matter how much they sicken me.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 19, 2009 @ 2:43 am - February 19, 2009

  311. I don’t recall. I do recall MM’s hysterical rants about illegal immigration, but I guess I skipped past his comments [targeting others than V the K].

    That’s fair. The comments I’m remembering were of the “This blog is the home of bigots” variety, attacking everyone who was (1) was present for the discussion and (2) expressed a preference for legal immigration and border security over MM’s views in favor of illegals.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 5:45 am - February 19, 2009

  312. You know, Apikores, it takes a man to admit when he’s wrong and I was wrong about you.

    I have no doubt you would have been one of the folks, in the concentration camps, escorting the Jews to the “showers” for some “cleansing”.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 19, 2009 @ 5:56 am - February 19, 2009

  313. adDave,

    How can you not see the hatred in Apoplyptic’s posts? Mormon hatred, conservative hatred, latent fear of homosexuality (do thy trust you with their children) All the poor man has is hate. I know that you’d not let his position on this particular question blind you to his hate.

    You and I disagree (though you’ve made more progress than Jennifer, admitting you’re not being denied rights, admitting President Obama woudl do or say anything to win, etc.) but I don’t ‘hate’ you. Pity you? Yes. Hold you in contempt? Frequently. but I don’t hate you. There are two people in the world I hate (no, neither of my ex-wives) and disagreeing with you on a blog isn’t even rateable compared to the the things they’ve done to me and mine.

    Funny thing is, if Api there wants to hold the past of the Mormon church as an example, why doesn’t he disown the Democrats, home of the Klan, slavery, and Fred Phelps?

    Comment by The Livewire — February 19, 2009 @ 7:22 am - February 19, 2009

  314. I take it from your user name that you’re one of the people who still hold the delusion that “conservatism” means keeping the government out of the bedroom. Take a look at the face of the Republican party in America, bud.

    Unfortunately, the bedroom is the only place the left thinks the government should leave people alone. Once you stop boning whoever your with, the left wants to regulate what you eat, drink, where you live, what car you drive, what radio programs you’re allowed to listen to, what health care you have access to, how much money you’re allowed to keep, who you may hire, fire, or rent to, and basically any other human activity you want to engage in.

    And NDT, unless Jennifer can provide a consistent legal argument why two brothers or four sisters can’t all get married, I think you have laid bare the shallowness of her thinking and the weakness of her “any relationship that doesn’t harm me should be allowed as marriage” argument.

    Comment by V the K — February 19, 2009 @ 7:53 am - February 19, 2009

  315. You haven’t pointed out any “errors” I’ve made, Dan.

    In fact, many of your comments in response to mine border on incoherent. Maybe there are some missing “nots” or something in your posts, but a lot of what you are typing doesn’t even parse, and I have no desire to try to figure out what you are trying to say.

    I responded to your original post, above. I assumed you meant what you said in that post, and you said that same-sex marriage advocates had not made an effort to state their case. (I think you reiterated that theme in the comments here, too.) Not “some,” but that a case had not been made. At all. Well, that’s just wrong. And I have no desire to read the rest of the junk you post here to try to gain a deeper context. Frankly, I’m not impressed with your intellect, your knowledge of law, or your ability to articulate. And you are all over the place with your arguments.

    If this thread is emblematic, you seem to have more of a problem with the “leftists” seeking to advance gay rights that you do with your “regulars” here, who accuse visitors of being child molesters “pretending” to be gay, and who want to indoctrinate five year olds into the joys of gay sex.

    It’s telling that you try to “correct” the visitors, who want to talk about prior judicial precedent (and who actually have the base of knowledge to do so) and silently cheer on your gang of yahoos seeking to conflate homosexuality with the “sexualization of children.”

    Dan, you are no friend to gay people. Your inability to see how you act as a bridge to the Salt Lake City ad folks, by letting allegations and statements like those mentioned immediately above slide, without comment, shows that your agenda is precisely the opposite of your mission statement above.

    Once again, many of my comments have NOT been posted, so you needn’t act like a hero for “rescuing” some of them.

    This board is a waste of time. There is no serious discussion going on here.

    No apologies. But I will leave you yahoos alone, so you can bash away, unimpeded by sanity.

    Comment by Barry E. — February 19, 2009 @ 8:42 am - February 19, 2009

  316. Shorter every moron who can’t advance a legal argument on this thread:

    I WINS!!!11!!!ELEVENTY!!!1!!

    We have the towering intellect of “NorthDallas”, who believes that if teh gheys are allowed to married, then suddenly we are going to start allowing animals to make legal contracts. No, seriously. I thought he couldn’t possibly be that stupid, either, but he repeated it again, so obviously it’s something he thinks is a real issue.

    Then we have V the K, who continues to screech about how others – the only ones who have presented arguments based in any form or fashion on law – can’t provide legal reasons against incest. Move the goalposts much, doofus? Given that laws against incest exist separately from those against marriage, how would extending marriage rights to gay couples change anything about anything else? Do you really believe there are an army of gay brothers out there just waiting for the day they can incestually gay marry one another? Really? If you do, you’re even dumber than you appear, and that’s REALLY dumb. And that goes for ALL the red herrings you and your idiot cohorts have thrown out there – the laws against polygamy, child marriage, all of those exist separately from marriage law. Which leaves you with…nothing but personal bias to support your opposition to treating people equally.

    Seriously, rather than just admit YOU CANNOT MAKE A LEGAL ARGUMENT against gay marriage, you guys insist that everyone simply recognize that YOU ARE DUMB.

    Ok, you win, point proven. You’re dumb. Have a nice life.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 19, 2009 @ 9:15 am - February 19, 2009

  317. Jennifer still can not answer why laws against incest are any different than laws against sodomy. She still can not justify incestuous homosexual marriage within her own legal construct of “any relationship that doesn’t directly harm anyone else should be allowed.” She can not reconcile her own personal list of exceptions to who should be allowed to marriage since she has already ruled out tradition, continuity, and societal benefits as reasons to privilege marriage.

    But she thinks she won.

    Dumb.

    Comment by Gregory of Yardale — February 19, 2009 @ 9:49 am - February 19, 2009

  318. “Enjoy your Aryan, athiest partner. ”

    Yet another ignorant and incorrect assumption courtesy of the jackass idiots here at “GayPatriot.”

    Comment by Apikores — February 19, 2009 @ 10:09 am - February 19, 2009

  319. Shorter Idiot of Yardale: “Because you didn’t argue against Y instead of for X, you lose.”

    Word, moron. This is a conversation about gay marriage, not about incest, not about bestiality, not about polygamy…though it’s interesting that you “non-haters” always try to drag those things into the mix and associate them as unavoidable side effects of treating gay people equally.

    Since you’re apparently too stupid to reason through this jungle of “logic” you’ve nurtured with such care: incest is illegal on its own, apart from any issue of marriage. So is bestiality. We’ve already covered why no one can “gay marry” an animal…but apparently you’re too damn stupid to figure out that it’s because ANIMALS DON’T MAKE OR ENTER INTO LEGAL CONTRACTS. Incest is illegal because it’s psychologically damaging to the parties involved in it and because of the genetic consequences of inbreeding with close family relations (note this does not include first cousins – science has shown there is no greater incidence of genetic problems in the offspring of first cousins than there are in the general population.) Polygamy is illegal primarily because of the ill effects associated with it: child marriage (illegal in its own right), women and children end up on welfare as the “man” of the family can’t support 20 or 30 people from his income, young boys kicked out of their homes so they won’t “compete” with the old men for young girls, and a host of other issues. That’s all separate from the law governing marriage contracts. Let’s note again: there is no legal way to be married to more than one person, and since we’re talking about LAW here, moron, that SHOULD be a clue. At least it would be one for a SMART PERSON.

    Just to help your fevered little brain in the future, when someone says “I think building a new highway is a good idea,” they don’t LOSE the argument because you come back with the rejoinder “OH HUH? What about the SEWER SYSTEM? If you can’t explain why we don’t need a new SEWER SYSTEM, you LOSE!!”

    Christ, you try to give people benefit of the doubt, and you end up finding out that they’re actually even dumber and more dishonest than they appear to be.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 19, 2009 @ 10:25 am - February 19, 2009

  320. Jennifer, we are wasting our time. I’m sure you’ve heard the expression “pearls before swine”?

    Comment by Apikores — February 19, 2009 @ 10:39 am - February 19, 2009

  321. Apikores – no doubt. The response to my last post will be “but you didn’t say anything about SODOMY!!! What about SODOMY, HUH?”

    Though sometimes it is amusing to watch them flail about.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 19, 2009 @ 10:50 am - February 19, 2009

  322. So, Jennifer, what’s the problem with two brothers or two sisters marrying each other? Within your legal construct. You don’t seem to be able to answer that.

    I didn’t bring up polygamy, or bestiality, but that’s basis you attack my position. And then you accuse me of bringing up something outside the argument. Ridiculous.

    And Dumb.

    Also, you have previously hung your case on the peg that it’s discriminatory to deny people the type of marriage they require for personal fulfillment. You also argue that the concerns of society as a whole should not justify discrimination against certain types of marriage.

    After all if one man wants to marry a duck, or four chicks want to marry one dude, how does that affect your marriage? Isn’t that the criterion you laid out to justify same-sex marriage? If it doesn’t directly affect you, you can’t object to it?

    It’s no wonder you’re getting a bit hysterical trying to defend your absurdly inconsistent opinions.

    Comment by Gregory of Yardale — February 19, 2009 @ 10:52 am - February 19, 2009

  323. Just a question, Gregory of Yardale… but are you a multiple name poster? You sure sound like another famous SouthPark lovin’ frequent commenter here at GP.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 19, 2009 @ 11:28 am - February 19, 2009

  324. I’ve been personally insulted by posters on this blog for daring to turn their “marriage-is-for-procreation” canard (which reduces marriage to glorified animal husbandry) around and suggest that if science could make same-sex reproduction possible, heterosexuality would be obsolete.

    Gay marriage opposition is classified as hate speech for the same reason bananas are classified as fruit. How can anyone who claims to “like” gay people, let alone be one themselves, believe their relationship is unworthy of the same legal protections ungay couples enjoy? If that’s not hate speech, isn’t it at least cognitive dissonance?

    Comment by Attmay — February 19, 2009 @ 11:45 am - February 19, 2009

  325. Idiot of Yardale – apparently you have reading comprehension issues, in addition to being completely addled. “How come you won’t type in an answer AGAIN, huh?! You LOSE!”

    You also argue that the concerns of society as a whole should not justify discrimination against certain types of marriage.

    No, moron, I’ve argued exactly the OPPOSITE; I’ve merely insisted, as does the law, that the society demonstrate that there are LEGALLY VALID concerns. Not just “my god doesn’t like it” or “I think it’s icky” or “that’s not the way we’ve done things in the past.” But actual LEGALLY VALID concerns about actual harm that would be caused by allowing same-sex couples to wed, other than to your tender sensibilities. Stuff like how we don’t allow blind people to drive cars, because they pose a danger to everyone else on the road. Stuff like how your property value is damaged if the guy next door decides to run a full-time flea market out on his front lawn. What damage can you, a moron in full bloom, show that you will suffer if Bob and Steve who already live together down the block make a legal contract of marriage between themselves?

    You keep waving around the “incest” flag as though there are millions of people just itching to get hitched to their sibling. Obviously this means you’re ignorant about incest itself, which in the very very very vast majority of reported cases involves an adult and a child under the age of consent. I don’t think there’s an army of people out there desperate to hook up via legal matrimony with the old man or woman who diddled them when they were a kid, or nympho sisters of horny brothers who are now all grown up and want the fun to continue inside of a legal marriage, but even if there were, the law recognizes that there are some pretty bad genetic consequences for the offspring of intra-familial unions, as well as the proven fact that allowing it would foster further familial dysfunction – in exactly the same way dysfunction snowballs in insular polygamist settlements. And familial dysfunction does indeed concern the larger society and have bad effects that yes, do affect me as a member of the society. So the legally valid concerns are pretty obvious; we don’t sanction it, and actively discourage it. Incest is still illegal even when the parties involved are all over the age of consent, though for the obvious reasons it’s impossible to know how much it goes on between closely related adults. I’d venture a guess that it’s not all that much, despite your fantasies. Other than those few and far between cases, incest is mostly about child rape. Now, do I need to explain to you why child rape is illegal, and how it has nothing to do with two individuals of the age of consent who just happen to be of the same gender wanting to make a contract together?

    Or do you want to really stretch and try to enunciate a LEGALLY VALID CONCERN about the damage you will suffer if same sex marriages are allowed?

    Comment by Jennifer — February 19, 2009 @ 11:47 am - February 19, 2009

  326. Gay marriage opposition is classified as hate speech for the same reason bananas are classified as fruit.

    Actually, botanically, bananas are not classified as fruit, because they contain no seeds. Furthermore, a banana tree is not actually a tree; it is an herbaceous flowering plant. Even though these things may look and appear on casual glance to be the same, biologically they are not, and that carries immense implication for both their use and cultivation.

    Your denial of biological fact in favor of “feelings”, Attmay, is exactly in the same vein as planting bananas and expecting them to grow because they “look” like fruits. Your need to deny basic and profound biological facts in favor of feelings will ultimately hurt you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2009 @ 11:54 am - February 19, 2009

  327. That made me laugh NDT.

    Does Jennifer realize no one is listening to her tail of sound and fury anymore? It’s clearly told by an idiot, and signifies nothing.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 19, 2009 @ 11:59 am - February 19, 2009

  328. the law recognizes that there are some pretty bad genetic consequences for the offspring of intra-familial unions

    Unfortunately, Jennifer, you and your fellow libbies have already argued above that marriage bans based on procreation concerns are irrelevant. Therefore, you cannot ban incest based on genetic consequences. In addition, you and your fellow libbies have also argued that abnormal family structures are not a valid concern for banning any sort of marriage; therefore, you cannot ban incest or polygamy based on either.

    To top matters off, you and your fellow gay marriage supporters have publicly stated that these things you are now bashing, like “households with more than one conjugal partner”, sibling relationships, parent-child relationships, and so forth are not inferior or wrong and should receive identical benefits.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2009 @ 12:07 pm - February 19, 2009

  329. Oh, and Jennifer; if you oppose polygamy and plural marriage as dysfunctional and dangerous, why are you and your fellow gay marriage supporters demanding it be made legal?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2009 @ 12:10 pm - February 19, 2009

  330. How can anyone who claims to “like” gay people, let alone be one themselves, believe their relationship is unworthy of the same legal protections ungay couples enjoy? If that’s not hate speech, isn’t it at least cognitive dissonance?

    Easy, Attmay; if you’re not hung up on a need to be “the same” as a heterosexual couple, it becomes patently obvious.

    For some reason, you are desperate to prove your worth by demanding a legal structure that doesn’t fit your reality. Marriage was designed for two unrelated adults who are going to raise their own kids, centered around the core principle of law that biology is the primary determinant of parental rights. No gay couple can produce children without having to legally waive the rights of the other biological parents.

    Again, the problem here is that you haven’t come to grips with the fact that you are different from heterosexuals. If you had, you wouldn’t be so self-loathing that you constantly need these external forms and ceremonies that don’t even make sense in the context of your relationships to prove your self-worth.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2009 @ 12:16 pm - February 19, 2009

  331. you and your fellow gay marriage supporters

    Where did I say any of those things, liar?

    You post a link to some website I’ve never seen before and presto chango, those are my opinions?

    You’re a pathetic shell of a human, aren’t you?

    Shorter Livewire: “uh-huh, uh-huh, yup, I can’t think of any legal reason for denying gay marriage, not a single one, but if I throw this poop, no one will notice my FAIL. This proves your a IDIOT!”

    Comment by Jennifer — February 19, 2009 @ 12:21 pm - February 19, 2009

  332. Gay marriage opposition is classified as hate speech for the same reason bananas are classified as fruit. How can anyone who claims to “like” gay people, let alone be one themselves, believe their relationship is unworthy of the same legal protections ungay couples enjoy? If that’s not hate speech, isn’t it at least cognitive dissonance?

    Attmay: Perhaps you need to learn that not everyone is as smart as you (believe you) are. It takes time. People need to be persuaded.

    And that’s the point. We don’t live in Plato’s Republic – and I wouldn’t want to. The Council of Alphas doesn’t rule by decree – although they clearly think they ought to, and are trying hard to get there; they must be stopped. You and others who think like you are not helping gay marriage make progress, by your nasty attitude that only rebukes and insults the very segments of society that we need to be slowly bringing around.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 12:26 pm - February 19, 2009

  333. No gay couple can produce children without having to legally waive the rights of the other biological parents.

    Neither can an old couple, yet old couples get married all the time. I missed the part of the constitution that said that old hetero people have “special rights”, which is what marriage is for couples not capable of reproducing together, according to you.

    You really are a one-trick pony, aren’t you?

    Comment by Jennifer — February 19, 2009 @ 12:28 pm - February 19, 2009

  334. Again, Jennifer, the hilarity of you trying to use exceptions is underlined by the fact that you tried to argue above that incest should be banned because “the very very very vast majority of reported cases involves an adult and a child under the age of consent”. Before, you argued that exceptions didn’t disprove the whole; now you’re arguing that they do.

    And the fact that you endorse and support these groups that are pushing for gay marriage means you endorse and support their opinions. Perhaps you should think first before you do that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2009 @ 12:35 pm - February 19, 2009

  335. And really, Jennifer, the reason you’re so desperate here is because you are not used to gays who will actually pull off your mask and reveal the antireligious bigot and hatemonger underneath.

    You don’t care a whit about us. You only care about using our sexual orientation as a cover for your leftist hate, your addiction to sexual promiscuity, and your attacks on religious people, as is well shown by your screaming insults to any gay person who doesn’t bend over and kiss your feet for your plantation kindness.

    Sexual orientation does not make one an antireligious bigot, an abortionist, a racist, and a leftist. Your attempts to co-opt us because you are all of the above demonstrate the shallowness and duplicity of your personality and beliefs.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2009 @ 12:39 pm - February 19, 2009

  336. ILC advises: “You (Attmay) and others who think like you are not helping gay marriage make progress, by your nasty attitude that only rebukes and insults the very segments of society that we need to be slowly bringing around.”

    Ding, ding. The ultimate lesson that our gay brethern of the Left should have taken away with them from three more defeats in this fall’s state-by-state gay marriage battle. When a political group is pressing for something from society or voters, snarling and acting like a pack of feral pigs doesn’t help your case.

    When added to the earlier 11 states where gayLeft activists failed to secure, protect or reserve the option of gay marriage, we can now add 3 others. 14 RECENT states where voter backlash against the concept of gay marriage has explicitly injured the broader gay community’s ability to find common ground with voters.

    Sometimes I wish these “activists” would limit their activism to circuit parties and let responsible, politically savvy, perceptive and well-intentioned gays carry the water on civil rights.

    I wonder if gay activists from the Left understand they’re killing our chances at accomodation on civil unions, gay adoption or other rights and protections? Frankly, I doubt they care.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 19, 2009 @ 12:55 pm - February 19, 2009

  337. You only care about using our sexual orientation as a cover for your leftist hate, your addiction to sexual promiscuity, and your attacks on religious people, as is well shown by your screaming insults to any gay person who doesn’t bend over and kiss your feet for your plantation kindness.

    Oh, calm down, Mary.

    Pointing out your weak-ass arguments isn’t “hate”, citing the constitution isn’t “addiction to sexual promiscuity” and stating correctly that your religious beliefs don’t cut the mustard when it comes to making law – according to our own constitution – isn’t “attacking religious people”.

    But then again you knew that. As we’ve already seen, you’re a liar, so you’ll just have to forgive me if I don’t buy into your latest swoon on the fainting couch.

    Comment by Jennifer — February 19, 2009 @ 12:55 pm - February 19, 2009

  338. No, Jennifer, your virtol aside, pointing out you don’t have an argument isn’t hate. It’s sunlight.

    You can’t counter a single point raised, just hoping your magic priests in their nice black robes wil waive their magic gavels and make it your way. and if they don’t? Well ‘they’ve been wrong before.’

    You can’t refute this simple statement:

    Any single person can marry any other single person of the oposite sex that he or she choses, and have that partnership recognized by the state.

    There, plain and simple, please explain how that discriminates agaist any individual taking advantage of it. and saying ‘It does’ doesn’t work.

    MI Matt, you hit it right on the head. I think even the advocates who -do- care sometimes cut off their noses to spite their faces. That’s not a trait of the left or the right. It’s human nature.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 19, 2009 @ 1:02 pm - February 19, 2009

  339. Oh, Barry, so now, it’s my comments that border on incoherent? Please point to specific language that doesn’t make sense. I was writing late at night, so may have dropped a word or two, so would be delighted to fix it if you can point to the particular sentences that don’t make sense.

    Oh and yes, Barry, I have pointed out errors you made. Go back to comment #182 where I note how false are the assumptions you made about me.

    Now, you say that you “assumed” I meant what I said in the post. I told you what I meant, it’s clear from the context of the post and from other posts I’ve written. That you have no desire to read the rest of what I’ve wrote, well, at least you acknowledge you’re more interested in attacking me than in understanding my ideas.

    Um, Barry, I don’t usually get as involved in the comment threads as I have in this one and I’ve pretty much limited myself to those who attack me personally (as you did) or misrepresent my arguments.

    No friend to gay people? Huh? What’s that supposed to mean

    Please tell me how I act like a bridge to some anti-gay nuts who posted an ad somewhere? I just don’t see it. I don’t want to be seen as countenancing their hatred, so if you can show me, with direct reference to my exact words, please do so I can correct them and respond accordingly.

    Please note, Barry, that while we get linked far more regularly on right-of-center web-sites (notably Instapundit and Malkin) than we do on left-wing ones, the hate comments come almost exclusively from the left.

    Perhaps I’m repeating myself, but it bears repetition. It seems you’re more interesting in attacking me than engaging. And I’d be delighted to debate you in any public forum you like.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 19, 2009 @ 1:03 pm - February 19, 2009

  340. LOL…and notice how Jennifer goes into one of her usual tirades to avoid acknowledging the fact that she was just pwned on her own inconsistency about exceptions, as well as the fact that she fully endorses and supports the gay marriage groups that are demanding the legalization of polygamy and insist that “households with more than one conjugal partner”, sibling relationships, parent-child relationships, and so forth are not inferior or wrong and should receive identical benefits to marriage.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2009 @ 1:08 pm - February 19, 2009

  341. as well as the fact that she fully endorses and supports the gay marriage groups that are demanding the legalization of polygamy and insist that “households with more than one conjugal partner”, sibling relationships, parent-child relationships, and so forth are not inferior or wrong and should receive identical benefits to marriage.

    Shorter North Dallas: “I’m a goddamned liar.”

    Comment by Jennifer — February 19, 2009 @ 1:26 pm - February 19, 2009

  342. The reason that Jennifer is dancing, Livewire, is because she can’t admit the following:

    1) She cannot reconcile her statements that the Constitution says you should be able to marry whomever to you are sexually attracted with the obvious fact that doing so would make unconstitutional bans on plural marriage, incestuous marriage, child marriage, and animal marriage.

    2) She cannot explain why she insists that the exception disproves the rule when it comes to heterosexuals, but not when it comes to the ludicrous construct she’s created around incestuous, child, plural, and animal marriage that ignores all exceptions.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2009 @ 1:30 pm - February 19, 2009

  343. Shorter Jennifer: I can’t refute, I can’t counter, so I’ll take the Los Angeles City College approved tactic of insults.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 19, 2009 @ 1:32 pm - February 19, 2009

  344. Meanwhile, Jennifer, as to your animal theories, simple answer: hasn’t scientific research already shown that animals like dolphins and chimpanzees can be taught language and have intelligence on the order of human beings? Furthermore, hasn’t the left to which you belong insisted that animals have the same “rights” as human beings?

    Then you should support animal marriage. By your own logic, if someone is sexually attracted to an animal, the Constitution says you have no right to deny them equal protection under the law since they are a “person” — especially since you have yet to explain how their attraction, relationship, and marriage would affect you personally.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2009 @ 1:36 pm - February 19, 2009

  345. Flailing, flailing, into the ocean blue….

    Comment by Jennifer — February 19, 2009 @ 1:41 pm - February 19, 2009

  346. We know you are Jennifer, and it’s kind of sad to watch.

    Kind of like watching a fish flopping around on shore, not sure how to get to water.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 19, 2009 @ 2:01 pm - February 19, 2009

  347. Flailing, flailing, into the ocean blue….

    Ah, so Jennifer is now reduced to describing what one of her comments is like in lieu of actually posting one. Very artsy.

    Comment by Gregory of Yardale — February 19, 2009 @ 2:04 pm - February 19, 2009

  348. One of Dan’s main points is (paraphrased) “If you want gay marriage so badly, why not try to convince those opposed to agree with you?”.

    Not a DAMN one of the people in this long thread has even hinted at comprehending that. Instead, we get bullshit from the supposedly super-intelligent, holier than thou Jennifer explaining that “you have to extend ‘rights’ to everybody”, except those she doesn’t like or approve of.

    Why not stick to the point and explain why you’ll gladly attack people, but won’t do a damn thing to convince people to agree with you? You won’t get people to agree with you by pissing on their shoes.

    Then we get Barry. I have to wonder what happened in his childhood that he feels the desperate need to prove that he’s smarter than everybody else. I promise we won’t beat you and chain you to your bed for losing a spelling contest.

    Speaking for myself, I’m not impressed with folks who bloviate with superflous flummery. Nor am I impressed with dickheads who miss the point of a conversation and call everybody else stupid because of it.

    Yet another ignorant and incorrect assumption courtesy of the jackass idiots here at “GayPatriot.”

    Save it for the book burning, Adolf.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 19, 2009 @ 3:55 pm - February 19, 2009

  349. #318: I didn’t know that about bananas. Thanks. Change the bananas in my comment to apples and I still stand by it.

    “Any single person can marry any other single person of the oposite sex that he or she choses, and have that partnership recognized by the state.”

    So sham marriages are legal, but the right of a gay man to marry one gay man they love (not ANYONE, but someone) isn’t. I feel really freakin’ wonderful about that.

    But here’s the thing: heterosexuals have special rights. They can marry someone they love who meets the qualifications. No homosexual has that right except in two states. And no homosexual will ever fall in love with someone of the opposite sex.

    Opponents of “miscegenation” also believed their laws were fair because no one could marry outside their race.

    And in France, civil unions, which were granted to avoid giving gay people marriage, are becoming more popular than marriage, thereby undermining marriage. This could have been avoided if gay marriage was legal.

    Anyone who pulls out the usual parade of horribles about polygamy, incest, and bestiality automatically forfeits the argument. Consider that the Bible (the Old Testament at least) has plenty of polygamists receiving approval from the Big Cheese (King Solomon had almost 700 wives, making me wonder how he found time to satisfy them all).

    We don’t want the right to marry “anyone” we love. Just someone. When gay marriage rights come, maybe there’ll be a provision excluding those who oppose them from having them.

    Comment by Attmay — February 19, 2009 @ 5:58 pm - February 19, 2009

  350. jennifer is awesome.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 19, 2009 @ 6:31 pm - February 19, 2009

  351. So sham marriages are legal, but the right of a gay man to marry one gay man they love (not ANYONE, but someone) isn’t.

    Yup.

    Mainly because you really don’t want the government to be in the business of patrolling love, nor is there a right to marry anything to which you are sexually attracted.

    The problem here, Attmay, is that to you and yours, marriage is going to solve all of your problems. Unfortunately, what you’re going to end up finding, just as you have with the innumerable other battles the community has fought, is that the problems come from you. Blaming Ronald Reagan for the AIDS epidemic did nothing to stop it, but it certainly kept you from having to acknowledge that promiscuous unprotected sex as a community idea was a stupid idea.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2009 @ 6:55 pm - February 19, 2009

  352. Here is some wonderful chatter. . . and folk wonder how changing minds like buttars will ever happen

    http://www.abc4.com/media/news/5/e/4/5e45c748-e744-4b97-a6a7-50c19c384550/butters_on_gays.mp3

    Comment by rusty — February 19, 2009 @ 7:19 pm - February 19, 2009

  353. ^^^ thanks for that post, rusty. i just listened to it.

    W.O.W.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 19, 2009 @ 7:48 pm - February 19, 2009

  354. […] comments to my post, Defining Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage as Hate Speech, offered quite a window into this left-wing worlview.  Amusing how, when accusing us of […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » (Some of) Our Critics & Their Imaginary Conservatives — February 19, 2009 @ 8:18 pm - February 19, 2009

  355. 343: “Blaming Ronald Reagan for the AIDS epidemic did nothing to stop it, but it certainly kept you from having to acknowledge that promiscuous unprotected sex as a community idea was a stupid idea.”

    In the words of the aforementioned Reagan, “There you go again.” I have never, on this blog or anywhere else, blamed Reagan for AIDS, which would have happened no matter who was President. Considering that the response to AIDS was a disgraceful disaster on all levels, but most shockingly is the San Francisco activists’ zealous desire to keep the bathhouses open. I also acknowledge that promiscuous unprotected sex is stupid. That’s why I don’t partake of it. I am not “the gay community,” and neither are most of the other people you have libeled and judged guilty by association. I should be judged by the behavior of others? That’s the same bullshit reasoning behind slavery reparations.

    Save your spittle-flecked vitriol for someone like Larry Kramer, who compared Reagan to Hitler (unfavorably, I might add) due to the death toll from AIDS. A monstrous slur.

    Do you have a list of Automatic Talking Points you’ve been cutting and pasting since you began blogging and trolling?

    Comment by Attmay — February 19, 2009 @ 8:27 pm - February 19, 2009

  356. Attmay,

    Yup. And amazingly, this country is based on having methods of addressing supposed inequalities, via legislation or referendum for example.

    That two men or two women or one man and two women can’t take advantage of the institution of marriage is no different than the fact that I can’t take maternity leave.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 19, 2009 @ 9:05 pm - February 19, 2009

  357. NDT said: “Mainly because you really don’t want the government to be in the business of patrolling love…”

    ummmmmmmmmmmmm, yes, that’s the point. “patrolling love” is exactly what you’re asking the government to do by denying two consenting adults the right to enter into a marriage contract.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 19, 2009 @ 9:55 pm - February 19, 2009

  358. Wrong again bob,

    The criteria for a state recognized marriage *don’t* have to have a love commission. If you meet the regulations provided, you can apply. Those regulations include two consenting adults of the opposite sex. People like ILC want to change that one qualifier, I’d prefer the ‘fred’ approach. Both of us look at the government as the way to change it.

    Or are you going to fight for male maternity leave because men can’t get pregnant?

    Comment by The Livewire — February 19, 2009 @ 10:07 pm - February 19, 2009

  359. livewire–you’re missing my point. i agree there should be no “love commission.” the gov’t shouldn’t be trying to police who’s in love or what is the “right” type of love (the opposite sex qualifier).

    and frankly i don’t think maternity leave has anything to do with this discussion.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 19, 2009 @ 10:22 pm - February 19, 2009

  360. There’s no way I’m reading 300+ comments on this blog, so maybe I’m simply repeating what’s already been said. It appears that some don’t understand why gay marriage and polygamy/incest/bestiality are fundamentally different, and so p/i/b should not be brought up in a discussion of gay marriage.

    It is only natural, normal, and acceptable for a human to be sexually attracted to either a man or to a woman. Just like a straight person, a gay person is sexually attracted to either a man or to a woman. It is unacceptable for an adult person, gay or straight, to sexually want a child, because nature did not order that it be the adult/child combination that would carry on the human race. Nature did not order that it would take three people to reproduce, or that it would take different species to carry on one. So being sexually attracted to a child, or two people, or an animal, is different than being attracted to a man or to a woman.

    I recommend very highly this post on same-sex marriage:

    http://www.gryphmon.com/2005/01/the_blood_of_ed.html

    That’s the best thing I’ve ever read on the subject. A man/man pair (or a woman/woman pair) obviously don’t reproduce, yet it’s in agreement with male/female complementarity. Not only does it agree, but it’s moral and essential. I remember a while back several writers of The Corner commented on the title of the book called “How the Homosexuals Saved Civilization”. They of course rejected idea. But over over a few exchanges they actually, without realizing it, concluded that it was (without saying the word) TRUE. That because homosexuals were not burdened with continuing the species (wife and kids and all that that) they could dedicate themselves to the arts and to building civilization. They quickly dropped the subject.

    Comment by arturo fernandez — February 20, 2009 @ 4:48 am - February 20, 2009

  361. Wow, arturo didn’tread the thread.

    Guess I’ll not read the reply.

    bob, the point is, I’m physically ineligible for maternity leave, not having the plumbing. Two men (or two women) or one man and two women, or one man and Chun Li are all ineligible for state recognized marriage, not meeting the criteria. Both are privileges/benefits that not everyone can take advantage of.

    As I recall, survey says that people as a whole, are more receptive to the concept of a seperate contract for same sex partnerships. Or as I call it ‘fred’.
    ILC, Dan, please correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t California have such an institution, with all the perks of a government recongized union?

    Now I know the arguement ‘But the Federal Government doesn’t recognize it!’ So it seems the next step is to have ‘fred’ recognized by the feds.

    Maybe, in 100 years, people would look and go ‘why do we have Marriage and Fred? Aren’t they the same thing?’ and move to merge them into an ‘Ethel’. Societal change takes time. Maybe it’s because we live in a fast food society, but society isn’t Burger King. You don’t get it ‘your way’. but you do get to try to have it added to the menu.

    I get my hackles up about ‘Gay Marriage’ Marriage is/has been defined in the west as the joining of a man and a woman. Gay marriage is a shorthand for a change to that. Here’s where I’m sure ILC and I split, to me ‘Gay Marriage’ is as much an oxymoron as ‘Fat Supermodel’ or ‘Violent Pacifist’ My mom and her partner aren’t ‘married’ anymore than my polyamourous friends are. They’re in a partnership, a relationship, a commitment… ‘fred’.

    Fortunately, despite my mom being a flaming liberal, she doesn’t need my, or government, validation to live her life. 🙂

    Comment by The Livewire — February 20, 2009 @ 7:19 am - February 20, 2009

  362. arturo fernandez, aka former GP poster Patrick Gryphmon, is back!

    And just to think that a few days ago we were waxing nostalgic on the good ol’ days of the lower class clan of raj, cowboy bob, patrick & co being better debaters than the current crop of Left clanners.

    And it wasn’t even a post about gay soldiers wallowing in second class military servitude to homophobic commanders, while single handedly saving Western civilization from all imaginary evils of poorly translated arabic. Way to go, patrick.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 20, 2009 @ 9:36 am - February 20, 2009

  363. It is unacceptable for an adult person, gay or straight, to sexually want a child, because nature did not order that it be the adult/child combination that would carry on the human race. Nature did not order that it would take three people to reproduce, or that it would take different species to carry on one. So being sexually attracted to a child, or two people, or an animal, is different than being attracted to a man or to a woman.

    Agree 100%, and that is why the polygamists, incesters, child molesters, etc. should be excluded from the privilege of getting State marriage licenses. But, if being able to get a State marriage license is treated as a “fundamental right” – they can’t be. We have had some lefty gay marriage supporters on this blog admit that yes, they couldn’t care less about continuing to exclude the polygamous or the incestuous. That position is indeed implied by their (mistakenly) treating State marriage licenses as a “right”, and, while disagreeing with their conclusion and politics of course, I’ve been forced to praise them for at least being consistent honest.

    ILC, Dan, please correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t California have such an institution, with all the perks of a government recognized union?

    Yes, it does. And as I’ve said before, I’m fine with it. I care about worthy gay couples having the legal substance of State marriage licenses. I’m fine with a compromise, IF it is arrived at democratically, where the substance is given under a separate name. I’ll still call it gay marriage, because that’s what the substance would be, but you and the State can call it “fred”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 20, 2009 @ 10:48 am - February 20, 2009

  364. arturo fernandez, aka former GP poster Patrick Gryphmon

    Interesting. I always knew arturo was somebody’s sockpuppet but, in the mists of time, I had forgotten whose it might be.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 20, 2009 @ 10:49 am - February 20, 2009

  365. When I’ve commented here on illegal immigration, it’s been assumed I’m an illegal immigrant. Now I’m an American gay soldier. Weird.

    Comment by arturo fernandez — February 20, 2009 @ 11:19 am - February 20, 2009

  366. 355, exactly 🙂

    Comment by The Livewire — February 20, 2009 @ 11:37 am - February 20, 2009

  367. No, arturo – What’s weird is that you would quote Gryph’s old blog, a blog that was never read by anyone and hence, only those connected to Gryph would know about it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 20, 2009 @ 11:42 am - February 20, 2009

  368. I am connected to Gryph the way I think you are. He commented here, I clicked on his name, and viola! I was at his website.

    Comment by arturo fernandez — February 20, 2009 @ 11:49 am - February 20, 2009

  369. Actually, no. He commented at another website (mark shea’s “catholic and enjoying it”). From there I went to his, and from his I found this found one. It was a few years ago, but I think that’s how it went.

    Comment by arturo fernandez — February 20, 2009 @ 11:59 am - February 20, 2009

  370. And you’ve remembered that one article, all these years? Because it was *that* brilliant or “best”? Oh, excuse me! I understand now completely 😉

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 20, 2009 @ 1:36 pm - February 20, 2009

  371. ILC said: “I care about worthy gay couples having the legal substance of State marriage licenses. I’m fine with a compromise, IF it is arrived at democratically, where the substance is given under a separate name. I’ll still call it gay marriage, because that’s what the substance would be, but you and the State can call it “fred”.”

    so only the worthy gay couples, eh? what authority, exactly, would determine this worth? how would it be measured? and why aren’t you equally concerned about heterosexual “unworthy” couples? your lack of logic is mind-boggling.

    and you’re fine with a compromise if it happens “democratically.” i’m guessing by this you mean by popular vote or referendum. i’m going to take a wild guess that you’re not a constitutional law scholar. what the hell do you think the court system is for? ever heard about “protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority”?? i wonder how long it would have taken to give women and african americans the right to vote if we let it up to popular vote (particularly the latter group since they are a numerical minority).

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 21, 2009 @ 7:09 pm - February 21, 2009

  372. Re your challenge:

    Please show me any case from ANYWHERE in the world throughout all of human history where a man produced an egg or a woman produced a sperm.

    Me. In the UK, where I was born, I’m legally male, due to appearance at birth. In Australia, where I live, I’m legally female, based on actual biology and medical tests.

    I’m also the biological father of my son. I’m Intersexed. In Kansas, I’d be regarded as male, because like some women who have become pregnant, I have 46xy chromosomes. In most states though, I’d b regarded as female, on the basis of common sense and medical reality.

    Comment by Zoe Brain — February 22, 2009 @ 3:12 am - February 22, 2009

  373. Wow, Zoe,

    I’m amazed your head didn’t explode growing up. I mean that confused me a couple of times reading it, I can’t imagine living it.

    I’ll have to check out your blog when I get home (blocked at work) but it sounds like a Royally (no pun intended) missed diagnosis at birth by the UK.

    (Insert Socialized medicine joke here)

    Comment by The Livewire — February 23, 2009 @ 7:41 am - February 23, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.