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)

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.

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).

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

and frankly i don’t think maternity leave has anything to do with this discussion.

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?

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.

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.

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?