Gay Patriot Header Image

Rauch & Blankenhorn’s “New” Thinking on Gay Marriage

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 6:19 pm - February 27, 2009.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage

Those who follow the serious debate on gay marriage know that Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn have become the two most responsible voices on their respective sides of the issue.  Last week, these two adversaries teamed up to offer A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage in the New York Times.  And for once, the Old Gray Lady serves the role she would like to serve, as a source of intelligent discussion on controversial subjects.

While Rauch and Blankenhorn disagree “on the merits of gay marriage,” they do “agree on two facts:”

First, most gay and lesbian Americans feel they need and deserve the perquisites and protections that accompany legal marriage. Second, many Americans of faith and many religious organizations have strong objections to same-sex unions. Neither of those realities is likely to change any time soon

They recognize the “parade of horribles” about which proponents of Proposition 8 warned us in their successful campaign last fall to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the California constitution. Both men want to ensure that religious organizations are not required to recognize unions at odds with their doctrines.

Thus they favor federal recognition of same-sex civil unions with “with robust religious-conscience exceptions:”

Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

I have hesitated to blog on this because, well, I’m not sure I agree with their solution. And I guess I feel that if I blog on something I must express an opinion.  Well, I do have an opinion.  And this is it. It’s refreshing to see two adversaries on gay marriage work together to forge a compromise which recognizes the concerns of both sides.

Neither brands the other a hater or moral degenerate. Each man understands the other’s arguments. Together they come up with a novel solution. And that’s the real good thing about their proposal, finally some new thinking on this controversial issue.

Share

77 Comments

  1. i read this article the other day when it came out. while i appreciate the dialogue, and am not necessarily opposed to what they’re proposing, i’m concerned by this line of thinking:

    “Second, many Americans of faith and many religious organizations have strong objections to same-sex unions. ”

    what exactly is the point? do we not have separation of church and state? gay people aren’t asking for churches to recognize gay marriages (at least the vast majority of us aren’t). why does it matter if a church doesn’t like gay people or doesn’t want to extend marriage rights to gays? i want the civil rights and privileges of marriage, not approval or acceptance by anyone’s church.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 27, 2009 @ 6:28 pm - February 27, 2009

  2. do we not have separation of church and state? gay people aren’t asking for churches to recognize gay marriages at least the vast majority of us aren’t

    it doesnt take a vast majority, as the entire gay marriage debate, and liberal tactics in general have proved. It only takes one activist and one activist court to declare something a “right”.

    In Massachusetts for example, a court ruled that the Catholic adoption services MUST adopt to same sex couples the same as it would heterosexual couples. In NJ, a court ruled that a religious organization MUST rent its facilities out for a gay wedding.

    And gay activists absolutely will use gay marriage, if they obtain it, to further attack religious institutions. Already activists in California have urged the repeal of the Mormon Church’s tax exemptions for daring to express their opinions on social matters. In Canada people have been punished by the law for daring to say the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin.

    For most gays this isnt about wanting to get married, as is proven by the abysmally low numbers of gay people who have availed themselves of the institution, and civil unions, where they are legal. For most it is about getting government to officially declare that same sex relationships are equal in the eyes of society to straight relationships — a ridiculous proposition when one looks at the biological capabilities of each. But for a large number of gays this is nothing more, nothing less than a fight with religion. They dont want the freedom to marry, they want to take away the freedom of those who believe their lifestyle is a sin.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 27, 2009 @ 6:47 pm - February 27, 2009

  3. Bob, the problem is that if there aren’t protections in place for the Churches, people will sue them for incidental reasons. Like not allowing a gay couple to get married on the premisess even if they aren’t using the Church minister.
    Look what happened to e-harmony, an angry lesbian sued them and they are a private company who should be allowed to chose their own customers.
    You Bob may be satisfied with State approved gay marriage. Unfortnately there are many for whom that isn’t enough, theywant to destroy all religion. Without the legal protections they will use this issue. The unintended consequences of good ideas.

    V

    Comment by leah — February 27, 2009 @ 7:01 pm - February 27, 2009

  4. Many religious institutions promote irrational views that are at odds with scientific fact. Give me one good reason (other than the First Amendment) to respect these views.

    No compromise.

    Comment by Attmay — February 27, 2009 @ 7:07 pm - February 27, 2009

  5. Attmay, I happen to think the First Amendment is more than sufficent reason.

    Comment by John in Dublin Ca — February 27, 2009 @ 7:11 pm - February 27, 2009

  6. getting government to officially declare that same sex relationships are equal in the eyes of society to straight relationships — a ridiculous proposition when one looks at the biological capabilities of each.

    Assuming the straight couple is fertile, of course. Gay couples are reproductively equivalent to infertile straight couples: that is, both kinds of couple reproduce (or have children) with the same kinds of techniques.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 27, 2009 @ 7:17 pm - February 27, 2009

  7. (i.e., assisted techniques)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 27, 2009 @ 7:18 pm - February 27, 2009

  8. (or adoption, etc.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 27, 2009 @ 7:48 pm - February 27, 2009

  9. GPW -
    Are you for civil unions?
    Are you for leagalized gay marrige?

    Comment by gillie — February 27, 2009 @ 7:48 pm - February 27, 2009

  10. “But for a large number of gays this is nothing more, nothing less than a fight with religion”

    projection much?

    Comment by gillie — February 27, 2009 @ 7:49 pm - February 27, 2009

  11. #3-

    You need not exclude the 1st amendment.

    My religious denomination doesn’t have any problem with same-sex marriage. If marriage is a strictly religious matter, then to deny my right to get married as a gay man is to discriminate against my first amendment rights to freedom of religion.

    If you are atheist and you have no problem with same-sex marriage, then to deny your ability to get married to someone of the same sex is discrimination against your first amendment rights.

    Comment by DanM — February 27, 2009 @ 7:52 pm - February 27, 2009

  12. Well, this is sort of off topic but here goes: what do all of you think of Michael Steele’s back-pedaling on civil unions? He recently was asked if he supported civil unions & he said “What, are you crazy?” Just asking.

    Comment by Jimbo — February 27, 2009 @ 8:03 pm - February 27, 2009

  13. Give me one good reason (other than the First Amendment) to respect these views.

    The 1st Amendment doesn’t compel respect nor is it a reason to respect any viewpoint. The ability to respect a viewpoint isn’t enshrined in the Constitution because it doesn’t need to be. Respecting another’s viewpoint is never a problem — even under a tyrannical government. The ability not to respect is what is at issue, hence the proposed religious protections in the proposal discussed above.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 27, 2009 @ 8:44 pm - February 27, 2009

  14. Sorry Gilltard,

    It’s not projection, its an observation. I have no fight with religion and I have no fight with people who admire the institution and want to become a part of it. I have a fight only with people who think everything they want is a “right”.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 27, 2009 @ 8:58 pm - February 27, 2009

  15. Gay couples are reproductively equivalent to infertile straight couples

    No, they arent. No gay couple has ever been shocked to find out they are pregnant. Millions of straight couples who have been told they are infertile have.

    But I’m not going to get into it with you and your dishonest arguments that attempt to redefine words like “reproduction”

    Gays are allowed to adopt. Fine. But say that instead of trying to redefine what reproduction means. Adopting is not reproducing, its adopting. That’s why there are two separate words meaning two separate things.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 27, 2009 @ 9:07 pm - February 27, 2009

  16. And most of those willing to ban gay marriage to “protect” religious “rights” would end up stepping on the rights of churches and synagogues who wish to perform these marriages.

    Comment by Attmay — February 27, 2009 @ 9:26 pm - February 27, 2009

  17. No gay couple has ever been shocked to find out they are pregnant.

    Neither has any infertile straight couple.

    Remember: Infertile means, **unable to get pregnant**. Show me a straight couple “shocked to find that they are pregnant”, and you’ll be showing me a fertile straight couple.

    Thus it remains the truth: Gay couples are reproductively equivalent to infertile straight couples. Through assisted techniques, adoption, etc., they have children – children who are related to 0 or 1 of the parents genetically (depending on the technique), and related to *both* parents where it counts: in the hard work, love and values it takes to raise them.

    you and your dishonest arguments

    Nothing even the tiniest bit dishonest here, AE.

    Adopting is not reproducing, its adopting.

    Construing the words in the narrowest biological sense, that is true. It remains also true that adoption reproduces aspects of the couple that are broader and more important than the genetic: their existence as a couple, their hard work, their love and values. Second, other techniques (ref. #6, “assisted techniques”) reproduce one of the couple genetically – with the willing support of the other.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 27, 2009 @ 9:26 pm - February 27, 2009

  18. If you are atheist and you have no problem with same-sex marriage, then to deny your ability to get married to someone of the same sex is discrimination against your first amendment rights.

    Except there is no first amendment right to marriage because its not a religious institution, its a civil institution. And if there were a first amendment right involved Muslims among others would have to be allowed to marry multiple wives.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 27, 2009 @ 9:28 pm - February 27, 2009

  19. yeesh…this seems like a bad idea to me. the problem with any “robust” conscience exception is that there is a real risk that the exception will swallow the rule. would a fundamentalist irs agent be permitted to deny the joint-tax return of a same-sex couple? would an evangelical judge be allowed to deport an immigrant same-sex spouse because he/she held a religious objection to their marriage? this exception provides a pre-textual shelter for people to disciminate against same sex couples. all they need to do is link their discrimination to an amorphous religious belief. perhaps a few, explicit and narrow exceptions, like “no church shall be required to administer a same-sex marriage.”

    and for once, gpw, i agree with you: it is good to see people with a difference of opinion join in a good faith debate on same sex marriage. that’s the problem, as i see it, with the most vocal participants in this debate–a total lack of good faith and an amenability to persuasion. and there’s plenty of bad faith on both sides of the debate. you have voluminously noted the bad faith on the part of liberals. but certainly one’s “sincerely held religious beliefs” about homosexuality can also be hateful and homophobic.

    Comment by Chad — February 27, 2009 @ 9:29 pm - February 27, 2009

  20. Through assisted techniques, adoption, etc., they have children

    Technically, no. They produce children, but then are required, either before or after, to go through a process of removing the biological right of the other parent(s) to the child and then establishing the legal relationship to the child that, in heterosexuals, is instantly recognized upon procreation.

    Furthermore, infertility is considered an abnormal condition among heterosexual couples and is found only in limited situations, i.e. biological damage or age. In contrast, infertility is the established condition among same-sex couples regardless of age or biological damage.

    The evidence is clear that heterosexual and homosexual couples are different biologically and in the implications of that biology. Therefore, they can be managed differently by society.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 27, 2009 @ 9:35 pm - February 27, 2009

  21. Except there is no first amendment right to marriage because its not a religious institution, its a civil institution.

    To be clear: A government marriage license is a privilege that society (i.e., the People) choose to extend. Just like a government license for fishing, driving, professional practice, or playing the kazoo at official town functions.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 27, 2009 @ 9:36 pm - February 27, 2009

  22. (Through assisted techniques, adoption, etc., they have children)

    Technically, no. They produce children, but then are required, either before or after, to go through a process of removing the biological right of the other parent(s) to the child and then establishing the legal relationship to the child

    Translation: Technically, yes. There are simply more legal steps to the process – Just as there are more physical steps, requiring more assistance, if the process was (say) artificial insemination, egg donation, etc.

    in heterosexuals, [the relationship of both parents] is instantly recognized upon procreation.
    Furthermore, infertility is considered an abnormal condition among heterosexual couples

    Neither point is in dispute. I don’t claim that either gay couples or infertile couples are reproductively equivalent to fertile straight couples. No. Not at all. I only claim that gay couples and infertile straight couples are reproductively equivalent to one another.

    infertility is… found [among straight couples] only in limited situations, i.e…. or age.

    Now that stretches the truth. Age is hardly a “limited” situation. It is universal – if the couple is lucky enough. All fertile people inevitably become infertile through age. And yet, infertile people/couples are still given State marriage licenses. Imagine that.

    heterosexual and homosexual couples…. can be managed differently by society.

    Not in dispute here. I have no doubt that gay and straight couples **can** be managed differently by society. Whether it is necessary to manage them differently, is what I question.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 27, 2009 @ 9:45 pm - February 27, 2009

  23. gillie in #9, if you actually read my posts, you’d know the answer to your queries.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 27, 2009 @ 9:48 pm - February 27, 2009

  24. Except the only people on this Earth who define who is infertile and who is not are doctors, and doctors have proven to be wrong in millions of cases.

    Construing the words in the narrowest biological sense, that is true.

    YES it is. Which means the contrary is FALSE.

    [BUT] It remains also true that adoption reproduces aspects of the couple that are broader and more important than the genetic:

    LIFE is genetic. Not much else more important than that.

    Here you go again. You cant reproduce with a man, only a woman can. Get over it. Accept it. Quit trying to weasel out of it.

    I’m done.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 27, 2009 @ 9:49 pm - February 27, 2009

  25. I remember when ILC argued that gays could reproduce because scientists manipulated Hamster sperm with a females DNA or something ridiculous like that.

    NDT…glad to see someone else face facts.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 27, 2009 @ 9:58 pm - February 27, 2009

  26. Ok kids, don’t start this mess again…

    I like the conscience excpetion idea. And no, I don’t think it would reach the extremes of what Chad fears.

    Men of conscience can disagree, but I do see thiis idea as something I could get, um, behind.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 28, 2009 @ 1:03 am - February 28, 2009

  27. I remember when ILC argued that gays could reproduce because scientists manipulated Hamster sperm with a females DNA or something ridiculous like that.

    Except that I never once did anything remotely like that. Ever. (And never would.) What great tactics, AE. They make me admire you so much.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 28, 2009 @ 1:21 am - February 28, 2009

  28. YES it is. Which means the contrary is FALSE.

    As I said: Construing the words in the narrowest biological sense. It remains also true that adoption reproduces aspects of the couple that are broader and more important than the genetic: their existence as a couple, their hard work, their love and values.

    LIFE is genetic. Not much else more important than that.

    That’s a very reductionist view of human existence, AE, and let me put it this way: You’re welcome to it.

    Ok kids, don’t start this mess again…

    TL, I’m just telling the truth here :-) As usual, I won’t be using personal invective.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 28, 2009 @ 1:25 am - February 28, 2009

  29. Final P.S. from AE: Don’t try to quote me out of context, because then you will only force me to quote myself in appropriate context, utterly smashing your claims.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 28, 2009 @ 1:27 am - February 28, 2009

  30. Sorry, type “P.S. *for* AE”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 28, 2009 @ 1:28 am - February 28, 2009

  31. I’m sorry, you’re correct. You never said it.

    You said gay couples will be able to have children that are genetically related to both gay parents within a decade, and claimed such experimentation was already happening.

    When I asked you to cite where, you didn’t respond.

    The fact that the only place any such thing had ever happened was with laboratory rodents was the factual answer, but you are correct that you didn’t say it.

    I apologize for attributing the embarrassing facts to you when you so deftly avoided citing them yourself.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 28, 2009 @ 2:13 am - February 28, 2009

  32. I’m sorry, you’re correct. You never said it.

    Well, that’s something. We must be grateful for the small things.

    To be precise, this is what I said back then:

    A homosexual couple is reproductively equivalent to a heterosexual couple where one of the partners is infertile; that is, *as a couple* they can choose to raise children together and, with the assistance of technology and outsiders, to bring forth new children that are genetically related to at least one of them.

    Some emphasis in original; some now added. Sound familiar? It should sound very familiar, by now.

    Next, as a personal reflection/prediction, I added:

    (Both, within the next decade.)

    No hamsterism or animals to speak of. None. Also, AE: the original uses funky punctuation you might want to look into, called “parentheses”. It’s part of how you indicate that something is a sidebar, unimportant to the main point. As it happens, that is still my prediction. And, it still doesn’t resemble your misrepresentation of it at #25.

    See, AE? I warned you that, if you attempted to misrepresent me by quoting me out of context (as is your wont), I would then quote myself in context, exposing your claims about me for the falsehoods they are. Now what else have you got?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 28, 2009 @ 2:32 am - February 28, 2009

  33. And a P.S. to that: AE, I don’t know why you – yes, you – have animal sex on your brain so much. I haven’t ever brought it into anything – and again, never would. You bring it in all the time. Why? Why, AE, do you have animal sex on your brain so much?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 28, 2009 @ 2:37 am - February 28, 2009

  34. For the record, I’d like to correct an overstatement I made at #22. I had said, “All fertile *people* inevitably become infertile through age.” What I had in mind, and should have said, was “All fertile *couples* inevitably become infertile through age.” Emphasis added, to highlight the difference. Women universally become infertile through age; men don’t necessarily. Because the woman becomes infertile with age, then (and only then) the straight couple becomes infertile with age. I stand by my point, that age-induced infertility in a couple can hardly be called a “limited situation”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 28, 2009 @ 3:38 am - February 28, 2009

  35. Oh look who’s tossing about the ad hominems now.

    I represented what you said completely accurately, and now you claim I misrepresented you because I didnt include parenthesis.

    Do parenthesis mean you didnt say it?

    You truly are a psychopath. Seek help.

    And by the way, you still cant reproduce with another man. Seek help with that too.

    Holy effing cow.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 28, 2009 @ 4:39 am - February 28, 2009

  36. I’d snatch you two bald-headed for this distractive pissing match.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 28, 2009 @ 4:53 am - February 28, 2009

  37. The “compromise” is preposterous. The day this becomes law is the day the ACLU sues in every state to strip the religious conscience provisions as discriminatory.

    Plus, the authors ignore a very, very serious problem that exists with defining religious freedom in this way. Codifying religious freedom does more than just define what is protected: it also defines everything that is not protected. Once a protection is specified in law, everything not in that law becomes unprotected… which means that at that moment we’ve given up on the idea of religious freedom. Once you define in law what aspects of religion have freedom, you have normalized the idea that religious freedom has boundaries decided by the state, and that the only issue is where those boundaries stand. Once that happens, prepare for those boundaries to shrink with the long march of years.

    We either believe that religious expression is absolutely protected, or we sign on to the idea that it is another sham “right” dispensed by the state.

    Comment by DoDoGuRu — February 28, 2009 @ 7:01 am - February 28, 2009

  38. “The day this becomes law is the day the ACLU sues in every state to strip the religious conscience provisions as discriminatory.”

    If it became law with Obama in the White House, they wouldn’t have to. Obama is going to roll back the conscience clause. This is the result of allowing the government to violate Constitutional liberties in the name of stopping discrimination.

    Comment by rightwingprof — February 28, 2009 @ 7:18 am - February 28, 2009

  39. AE, why are so hung up on semantics here? No one, including ILC, said that two men can procreate.

    Comment by Pat — February 28, 2009 @ 7:24 am - February 28, 2009

  40. Oh look who’s tossing about the ad hominems now.

    Alrighty, then. What ad hominems? Name one. (if you mean that they came from me)

    I did ask you a QUESTION at #33, that I’m genuinely curious about: Why do you, AE, so often try to bring human-animal sex into discussions? It really puzzles me. Are you unprepared to answer my question? (Hint: That would be a new question. Things that end with question marks are usually questions.)

    I represented what you said completely accurately

    Nope. You misrepresented me, plain and simple. Such great techniques, AE – they so inspire me to look up to you.

    now you claim I misrepresented you because I didnt include parenthesis.

    Nope. I didn’t claim that. I claimed that you misrepresented me because you had tried to assert this about me:

    ILC argued that gays could reproduce because scientists manipulated Hamster sperm with a females DNA

    Which is demonstrably false. It has nothing to do with anything I’ve ever said.

    You truly are a psychopath.

    Thank you, AE, for caving in: resorting to naked, fifth-grade name-calling as a substitute for being able to answer your opponent rationally. It means that you can’t answer me rationally; that I won.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 28, 2009 @ 10:06 am - February 28, 2009

  41. (Won the argument, I mean. As to whether it is a mere pissing match: TGC, I will leave that to you to decide ;-) Honestly, I believe that you or anyone on the receiving end of AE’s crap would want to defend themselves, within reason.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 28, 2009 @ 10:17 am - February 28, 2009

  42. #28 As usual, I won’t be using personal invective.

    *snicker*

    Comment by Ignatius — February 28, 2009 @ 11:01 am - February 28, 2009

  43. AE, why are so hung up on semantics here? No one, including ILC, said that two men can procreate.

    Pat, thank you for understanding that. I think the issue is that, for whatever reasons which I don’t know and won’t presume to guess, AE simply does not want to hear that gay couples and infertile straight couples are, in fact, reproductively equivalent and each have about as much reason to be granted marriage as the other. And in my past observations, if someone tells AE something he doesn’t want to hear, next he’ll bring out the insults and misrepresentations.

    No big deal. It’s just funny to be on the receiving end, since I’m one of the ones who *does not* believe that gay marriage is any sort of ‘right’ – One of the ones arguing consistently that the People should be able to vote on gay marriage, and reject it (if that is their will).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 28, 2009 @ 11:03 am - February 28, 2009

  44. here is more on Gay Marriage, The Gipper and . . .

    well just more food for thought.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_woolner&sid=ajaGRxCRlMUY

    Comment by rusty — February 28, 2009 @ 1:02 pm - February 28, 2009

  45. A male couple I know just became parents to a baby who is genetically related to them both. It happens all the time. I don’t know what AE’s problem is.

    Comment by David — February 28, 2009 @ 1:12 pm - February 28, 2009

  46. “And by the way, you still cant reproduce with another man.”

    No, but it sure fun trying :)

    Comment by a different Dave — February 28, 2009 @ 1:17 pm - February 28, 2009

  47. A male couple I know just became parents to a baby who is genetically related to them both.

    David, that is a fair point. I kept on saying stuff like:

    Through assisted techniques… [infertile couples - gay or straight] have children – children who are related to… 1 of the [couple] genetically…

    But why should I have limited it to 1? Depending on the couple’s choice, the mother’s sperm donor (down at the fertility clinic) may be her spouse’s brother or father. Or, the father’s egg donor may be his spouse’s sister. Thus relating the new child, in a genetically significant way, to both of the couple. Of course, it’s still not like the way fertile straight couples reproduce – i.e., directly. But I haven’t claimed it is.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 28, 2009 @ 1:43 pm - February 28, 2009

  48. No. This would not work. It compromises too much for what would still be a separate and unequal status.

    Comment by Erik — February 28, 2009 @ 2:53 pm - February 28, 2009

  49. If the proposal was marriage with a religious conscience exception, then that might be a framework for a deal. But we won’t bestow legitimacy on our opponents argument in order to accept an inferior status. That gives away too much.

    Comment by Erik — February 28, 2009 @ 3:05 pm - February 28, 2009

  50. Its clear to me now, the creator of this image has obviously encountered ILC.

    Congratulations ILC, you win. I am not retarded enough to keep arguing with a sleazy liar like you.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 28, 2009 @ 6:20 pm - February 28, 2009

  51. Pat,

    Its not semantics, its English. My entire point is that straight people can create life, and gays cannot. But ILC, in typical Bill Clinton fashion wants to redefine what the meaning of reproduce is.

    He wants it to mean adopt. He wants it to mean piano lessons or whatever the hell this is supposed to mean

    [BUT] It remains also true that adoption reproduces aspects of the couple that are broader and more important than the genetic:

    Fine, ILC can believe reproduce means whatever he wants in his own little freakazopid, psychologically disturbed world.

    For the rest of us in reality, the ability to create LIFE is an important ability that ONLY heterosexuality is capable of

    And I truly am sick to death of having to deal with ILCs psychoses and insecurities every time i try to make that important distinction.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 28, 2009 @ 6:31 pm - February 28, 2009

  52. Filtered.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 28, 2009 @ 6:31 pm - February 28, 2009

  53. A male couple I know just became parents to a baby who is genetically related to them both. It happens all the time.

    Only if one of them is reproducing with the others female relative. Which is pretty sick.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 28, 2009 @ 6:43 pm - February 28, 2009

  54. here is more on Gay Marriage, The Gipper and . . .

    I see, so we should accept the “it happened over 40 years ago” only when it applies to liberals like Moyers.

    Got it.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 28, 2009 @ 7:15 pm - February 28, 2009

  55. TGC. just a little food for thought. ‘ folk change their minds. ‘

    and here’s something to get yours and I am sure AE and NDT panties in a big twist.

    A new national study based on data from a top-ten online adult entertainment provider reveals that Utah has the highest per-capita consumption of online porn in the nation. But it’s not just Utah. More generally, states that generally more conservative and religious are also among the best consumers of online porn. BTB

    like the skin on V the K’s site also

    Ciao

    Comment by rusty — March 1, 2009 @ 12:40 am - March 1, 2009

  56. #50 AE, you are a disgusting excuse for a human being.

    Comment by a different Dave — March 1, 2009 @ 12:43 am - March 1, 2009

  57. Most gay marriage opponents are disgusting excuses for human beings.

    Comment by Attmay — March 1, 2009 @ 3:43 am - March 1, 2009

  58. Differently Abled Dave,

    Coming from you that is utterly meaningless.

    Got your helmet and bib on tight?

    Comment by American Elephant — March 1, 2009 @ 5:14 am - March 1, 2009

  59. #56 No, not most only some. Just like only some of those for gay marriage resort to violent actions and hostile words. It just so happens that a few of the more repulsive anti-gay lunatics have chosen to comment on here regularly claiming to be “conservative”.

    Comment by a different Dave — March 1, 2009 @ 10:57 am - March 1, 2009

  60. let go your hatred attmay, lead you to the dark side it will.

    AE, I joke all the time about a friend getting pregnant by her step=brother because her husband’s had a vasectomy (no funds to reverse it)

    No I mean by artifical insemination., but the truth remains that “All the DNA is there.” Is that sick by you?

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 1, 2009 @ 11:25 am - March 1, 2009

  61. and here’s something to get yours and I am sure AE and NDT panties in a big twist.

    Why? No, seriously, what sort of conclusions are you and your fellow bigots at Box Turtle Bulletin trying to draw from this?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2009 @ 3:22 pm - March 1, 2009

  62. “bigots at Box Turtle Bulletin”

    meaning “they wouldn’t let me spread my vile hate all over their comments? You are the poster child for anti-gay rhetoric so you calling someone else a bigot is ludicrous.

    Comment by a different Dave — March 1, 2009 @ 4:44 pm - March 1, 2009

  63. A bigot is a person who, without thought, is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own — wiki

    MIRROR MIRROR on the wall NDT has said it all.

    but then being such a true christian: Let He Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone, guess NDT just missed that sunday school class

    Comment by rusty — March 1, 2009 @ 6:27 pm - March 1, 2009

  64. meaning “they wouldn’t let me spread my vile hate all over their comments?

    “Vile hate” is a rather amusing accusation to make, adDave, when you consider what their other commenters were saying and what they ended up doing to someone who they thought was me.

    Oddly enough, Burroway and Kincaid tried like hell to scrub the site after I posted what their commenters were saying, plus the fact that they had deliberately allowed it to remain up. But that is, after all, what website saves and Google Cache are for, so you may rest assured that I have proof that you and your fellow gay liberals not only don’t think that calling someone a pedophile is “vile hate”, you’re all about publicly outing someone, encouraging other people to attack them, making smears about their mental health, and getting their entire identity wrong in the process.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2009 @ 7:13 pm - March 1, 2009

  65. #50 AE – Come on, dude. More personal invective, please. I know you can do better. You haven’t lied about your opponent (me) enough in this thread! MORE!!!!1! LOL :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2009 @ 8:40 pm - March 1, 2009

  66. [David] A male couple I know just became parents to a baby who is genetically related to them both. It happens all the time.

    [AE] Only if one of them is reproducing with the others female relative. Which is pretty sick.

    You know, AE, it’s funny to hear you say that, because it’s in the Bible that a guy was punished by God when he *wouldn’t* reproduce with his former sister-in-law. His brother became infertile… through death (i.e., being killed). He was expected to take over her (as one of his wives) and reproduce with her the ancient way (no clinical assisted techniques, in those days). But he kept “spilling his seed on the ground”, as one possible English translation goes. God was displeased with him for that: not for the masturbation per se, but for refusing to obey his orders and produce heirs for his brother. It’s an interesting story, as an ancient culture study and as a human drama; you might want to look into it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2009 @ 8:53 pm - March 1, 2009

  67. #63 See NDT, there’s a difference between you and I. I understand that there are liberals who are idiots and say and do hostile things and that there are millions of conservatives who are civil and reasonable. You ob the other hand are unable to differentiate. Whatever those you point to may have said it does nothing to change the repulsiveness that flows from your twisted mind.

    Comment by a different Dave — March 1, 2009 @ 9:23 pm - March 1, 2009

  68. No I mean by artifical insemination., but the truth remains that “All the DNA is there.” Is that sick by you?

    Yeah, I think wanting your sister to have your partners baby whether by traditional means or artificial insemination is pretty f*cked in the head.

    And no, its not going to have his DNA, its going to have his sister’s DNA, which is different than his. The child will not be related to him as a son or daughter, but as a niece or nephew.

    And to be so screwed in the head and unable to accept that gays cant reproduce together, that you feel it necessary to have your partner procreate with your sister….

    yeah, its majorly fucked in the head. Here’s an idea, why not send your friend to a shrink, and a biologist and have him work out why he cant accept biological facts?

    Comment by American Elephant — March 1, 2009 @ 9:53 pm - March 1, 2009

  69. *blinks*
    Reads his post again, confirms he did write ‘step-brother’
    *blinks again*
    “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will get mowed down in the crossfire.”
    *looks at adDave actually agreeing with ILC*
    *takes one big step out of the way*
    Gentlemen, fire at will.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 2, 2009 @ 6:48 am - March 2, 2009

  70. OMG-D, NDT look at this:

    those pesky christian folk are now promoting within the walls of THE CHURCH. Sacred Heart Prep doing the God BOX.

    –Writing on her personal blog “The thoughts of a teenage girl” on Dec. 15, 2008, a young woman who says she plays “Angie, who is the lead character’s girlfriend,” and had just returned from her first rehearsal of “Be Still and Know,” had this to say of the play:

    “With the passing of Prop 8, I think that California needs a nice dose of humanity.

    The show does a beautiful job of defending homosexuality with the bible, the very thing most commonly used to condemn it, including Leviticus 18:22 (‘Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination’), to which Carlos (Manuel) Cordero, and openly gay, Christian teen in the play, responds, ‘The Bible also say that eating shellfish is an abomination… Does anyone who eats shrimp commit a lesser crime than homosexuality?’

    The show is smart, and powerful, and will cause many people to reconsider their beliefs about homosexuality.”

    Comment by rusty — March 2, 2009 @ 8:17 am - March 2, 2009

  71. And no, its not going to have his DNA, its going to have his sister’s DNA, which is different than his. The child will not be related to him as a son or daughter, but as a niece or nephew.

    You’re half right, AE. Genetically, the child will be related as a niece or nephew. I’m not sure what you mean by “have his DNA.” A child has exactly half the DNA of each biological parent. Siblings share about half the DNA (could be more, could be less, depending on the luck of the draw). So the child would have about a quarter of the partner’s DNA.

    As for the legality, morality, or ick factor about having a relative carrying someone else’s child, it’s apparently legal. I’ve never heard any moral outcry over it. I think a lot of people (including straight persons) have been doing it when there was a fertility issue. I think I heard once that a mother was a surrogate for her daughter, and again, there was no big outcry. And in all cases that I’ve heard of, the child was conceived from an egg and sperm whose original owners were not biogically related to each other.

    And to be so screwed in the head and unable to accept that gays cant reproduce together

    Again, nobody has said this.

    Comment by Pat — March 2, 2009 @ 9:11 am - March 2, 2009

  72. TL, even ADD can occasionally say something that is halfway sensible by pure chance. You know the famous idea of a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters ;-)

    To be clear, I disagree strongly with ADD’s position on NDT. I was going to say something about the latter, decided not to, and will change my mind and say it now. NDT deserves no less. ADD’s #66 is a LOL-fest. His attitude in the second half of it, aside from the sheer unfairness, contradicts the attitude he claims in the first half (and that I have never seen ADD practice).

    As for the rest:

    wanting your sister to have your partners baby whether by traditional means or artificial insemination is pretty f*cked in the head

    First, the sister needn’t be the one carrying the baby; she could simply be an egg donor, like a third-party egg donor except she is not be a stranger. As when AE screeched falsely about my supposedly promoting human/animal inter-genetics, he is “filling in blanks” with some pretty giant assumptions; and perhaps, as the creator of said assumptions, he might submit himself to examination ahead of his recommending it for others. Second, some infertile straight couples do it, and it results in beautiful children, related to both of the couple. That’s reality. AE is welcome to rail against it if he wants. Third,

    The child will not be related to him as a son or daughter, but as a niece or nephew.

    Translation: The child will indeed be related to him, far more than if they had gone with a stranger as the egg donor.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2009 @ 9:17 am - March 2, 2009

  73. filtered

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2009 @ 9:17 am - March 2, 2009

  74. A child has exactly half the DNA of each biological parent. Siblings share about half the DNA (could be more, could be less, depending on the luck of the draw). So the child would have about a quarter of the partner’s DNA.

    Yes, and another way to look at it is from the point of view of the grandparents: Exactly half of the child’s DNA will be the grandparents’ DNA, the same as if the original sibling (the one who is in the couple) had been fertile.

    ‘unable to accept that gays cant reproduce together’

    Again, nobody has said this.

    Um, not to split hairs, but it might be better to say that nobody has said gays can *procreate* together. I have said that gay couples can “reproduce” with the word “reproduce” construed more broadly than traditional procreation; that is, reproduce with the assistance of outsiders / technology, and with an understanding that even if a child is related genetically to only 1 or 0 of the parents, the child still embodies (or reproduces) the couple’s existence, hard work, love and values. I say, that is the manner of reproduction of infertile straight couples. And gay couples.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2009 @ 9:27 am - March 2, 2009

  75. ILC, perhaps I should have been clearer. I am well aware what AE means when he says that two men can’t reproduce together. He is talking about procreating in the way that a man and woman can procreate with the men producing the sperm and the woman the egg and all that.

    And I understand what you mean when you say that two men can reproduce together, especially when you emphasize that it requires the same type of assistance that infertile straight couples use.

    Comment by Pat — March 2, 2009 @ 9:37 am - March 2, 2009

  76. My bottom line: If marriage is about legitimizing and/or protecting the kids… well, some gay couples have them, and many straight couples don’t… so we need to fix something, there… either expanding marriage to include gay couples with kids, or, narrowing it to exclude childless-and-infertile straight couples. If we decide to be generous and include gay couples, well, the main thing is to arrive at it democratically; which means I (for one) would accept a compromise of calling them “civil unions”, part of the topic of GPW’s post.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2009 @ 2:55 pm - March 2, 2009

  77. “His attitude in the second half of it, aside from the sheer unfairness, contradicts the attitude he claims in the first half (and that I have never seen ADD practice).”

    spare me the “unfairness” BS. You defend a person who in practically every comment attacks millions of innocent LGBT people and liberal, that is the epitome of unfairness. 2nd, it contradicts nothing because I was speaking only of NDT not conservatives in general. 3rd – I do not, have not and will not EVER condemn all of one group for the “sins” of a minority. Those who read that into my words are projecting their own warped views of those they disagree with.

    Comment by a different Dave — March 2, 2009 @ 8:41 pm - March 2, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.