Wow, ILC is having a bad week it seems. If only he could earnestly apologize to all for his shameless posturing about the hate that gayLeft has for others while spreading the petty, spiteful mean-spiritedness all around here?

Come on, ILC. Change those old spots; change that old bark; change those old tricks.

When Dan wrote: “… the mean-spirited attitudes all too many gay marriage advocates toward those who disagree with them. Sometimes, it seems they’re acting like commissars from the Soviet Union in its heyday…” I think he could have striken the words “gay marriage advocates” and just inserted “commenters here”

Commissars from the old Soviet Union? Did they have old dawgs with the same old spots, same old bark, same old tricks in Moscow?

But Attmay, you may be in deep trouble now for openly disagreeing with the most disagreeable commenter in the Commissar… I mean, here.

Friggeth thee and ye noble steed upon which thou rodest.

i’m pretty sure that trying to have the government ban the consensual sex between two adults that happen to be of the same sex could be considered a fascist sentiment…especially when you consider the reasons given for such a ban: that “that” kind of sex is not good for the state, will bring down the moral fabric of the state, etc.

As for Rick Santorum, I get what he was supposed to have meant when he criticized the Lawrence v. Texas decision. That he didn’t want the courts to have the power to make such decisions. And I would have respected Santorum’s outrage if he made a point of trying to get rid of sodomy laws through legislative means. As far as I’m aware, he didn’t, and apparently would have liked to have kept same sex sodomy laws on the books. Whatever, that’s his opinion. Also, it wasn’t just consensual sex that Santorum was likening homosexual sex to.

If Santorum’s point is as you say, who should decide then what forms of consensual sex should be allowed and not allowed? I suppose it would be best in the legislatures. Maybe the Supreme Court shouldn’t have done it. But other than Santorum and a couple of other loonies, there really wasn’t any outcry over the decision. So whereas there is opposition to same sex marriage and even civil unions, and amendments to bar such, there isn’t the same reaction to the Lawrence decision.

Anyway, just because two issues are tangentially related, doesn’t justify keeping both outlawed. I believe there are compelling reasons to outlaw incest relationships while not outlawing homosexual relationships. That seems to be the place where most people in this country are. So I don’t expect our state or federal legislatures or courts legalizing or decriminalizing any form of incest any time soon.

As for age of consent laws, as far as I’m concerned, anything under 18 is too low. Certainly 12 is way too low. It seems to me that should be more the focus in Spain, as opposed to same sex marriages. I personally don’t believe that anyone under 18 should be having sex. And I believe it should be illegal for an adult who is, say, at least four years older than a child to have sex. As such, I certainly believe that the minimum age for marriage should be 18. What I find astounding is that some people actually mitigate sex, including pregnancy, involving a teen if there is a promise of marriage. Go figure.

It’s part of the broader contextual narrative Rick Santorum was speaking to when he noted that if you take away the power to outlaw one form of consensual sexual behavior, you essentially take away the power to outlaw any form of consensual sexual behavior.

The only slippery slope I see here, is that perhaps recently, Romania also decriminalized homosexual sex, so now since that is allowed, it was somehow inevitable that consensual incest would now be decriminalized. I don’t think anyone here is arguing that it is better for homosexual sex to be criminalized. Or am I wrong about that? In any case, if there is any slippery slope, it began when any sex was allowed.

It’s different than hetero marriage in 3 ways:

I get your point, Ashpenaz, when you are talking in general terms. Aside from #1, the others are as a result from many years of opposite sex marriage, and no expectation of same sex marriage or civil unions except only very recently. And even with #1, besides the fact that same sex couples do adopt, etc., just like infertile younger straight couples, there are plenty of straight couples that have no intention of having children.

Further, looking at marriage at the individual level, the dynamics of heterosexual married couples, in your #1,2,3, are so varied as well.

In answer to your question: Umm, I would say it still needs further dumbing down. A sentiment like that can never be dumb enough. Probably needs more spittle and bile, too.

#97: Check the numbers. Those are the posts to which I am responding.

Does not answer my questions (and incidentally, I checked the comments before I asked my questions). Again: Shove what? When? Where? Why and how?

this is because gay people can’t legally get married (in most states); where do you think the term “in-law” came from? you’re family by law, not blood. this is a distinction w/o a difference, ash.

“Hetero couples frequently share the same last name as a symbol of their merging of identities–homosexuals don’t.”

again, this fact is more b/c of legal issues. and for the record, there is an increased trend these days of hetero couples now taking the female’s last name, of hyphenated names, and of women keeping their last names. i’m not quite sure what your point is. as gay marriage continues to gain mainstream acceptance and after full legal rights are extended to gay unions, i imagine a similar construct may come to fruition for gays, especially for those couples planning a family.

the irony of your argument is that you’re saying we shouldn’t call it “gay marriage”, because of reasons that are derived from the fact that gays currently can’t get married.

None of these are absolutes, but I would say that they are generally true. Thus, we can say that homosexual relationships are different than heterosexual relationships. Hence, these DIFFERENT relationships can have DIFFERENT names and still have the EXACT SAME legal rights. Same-sex covenants are legally equal to marriages. Separate but better.

and more importantly, do you think this “covenant” deserves the same legal benefits as heteros? if so, then why bother making the distinction in semantics? i don’t really care if you want to call gay marriage “asparagus” as long as the rights and privileges are exactly the same under the law.

#1 is kinda obvious. as for #2…is that because you’re closeted? assuming you’re close with your family, would you not want your loved ones to meet the person with whom you’ve chosen to live your life? when your family gets together for holidays, would you guys just go your separate ways and pretend like you’re single? as for #3, most of the married hetero people i know are actually still individual people. they might get a join checking account or something, but i think you’re over-generalizing about heteros to imply that married couples no longer have any individual identity.

Homosexual dynamics are different than heterosexual dynamics in (at least) the above 3 ways, therefore we can’t simply transpose heterosexual marriage on homosexuals. We can create a fully equal, fully legal relationship using civil unions. In churches who wish to bless these relationships, I suggest the term “same-sex covenant.”

We can create same-sex covenants which are separate but better.

so how is this relationship any different than a hetero marriage, other than both of you being male?