Regards,
Peter H.

Sorry Rob,

You are wrong on all counts. You are pulling definitions of marriage out of your ass. Furthermore you are confusing the reasons individuals decide to get married and the state interest in marriage. They are not the same.

I never claimed they were the same, but what I’ve stated is based on historical facts. The state did get involved in marriage in the 17th century. Yes it did for ‘legitimate’ population growth, also to add another source of revenue, and to have more control over regional arbitation. Yet the argument is that it’s not a real tradition, just 400 year state policy to intrude into the affairs of its citizens.

The people have decided, through their elected representatives that the purpose of marriage is what I stated above. The courts have upheld it. It also happens to be the function marriage performs to society.

They sure did in the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa, Norway, Sweden; in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont.

You have stated some of the reasons some people have gotten married and decreed that they are the definition of marriage.
Some women get married because all their friends are married. That doesnt make it the definition of marriage.

Semantics again. I’m talking about tradition and reasons of marriage, not what people or states define marriage to be.

My definition is supported by statute, yours have NEVER been adopted or supported by anyone anywhere.

YOUR definition? So it’s safe to assume that you oppose same-sex marriage?

So I guess since YOUR opinion is not representative of ANY generation, you would agree that we should ignore YOU?

Well I just showed that your poll was either outdated or bunk and that taken the margin of error into consideration, the majority of youth so support by YOUR claimed source. Perhaps we should ignore YOU instead since you don’t bother to check your sources?

But thank you for illustrating so clearly how gay liberals regularly want to silence everyone who opposes them.

Throwing in a false claim and a non-sequitur. To be expected from someone of your caliber. I’ll tell you this though, there’s more evidence that this blog is trying to silence commentators with its filter system than most gay blogs.

Americain Elephant = FAIL

BZZZT! wrong again!

According to Pew:

LOL According to Pew? Where did you get that poll? Let’s see what the most recent Pew Fourm really says:

On the other hand, roughly half of all adults under age 30 (49%) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed.

N.B AE, it asked about marriage not civil unions, and if you remove the 25 to 30 year olds, you’re most likely to see the majority of them support same-sex marriage.

#6

BZZZT! wrong again!

According to Pew:

LOL According to Pew? Where did you get this poll? Let’s see what the most recent Pew Fourm really says:

On the other hand, roughly half of all adults under age 30 (49%) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed.

N.B AE, it asked about marriage not civil unions, and if you remove the 25 to 30 year olds, you’re most likely to see the majority of them support same-sex marriage.

#6

BZZZT! wrong again!

According to Pew:

LOL According to Pew? Where did you get this poll? Let’s see what the most recent Pew Fourm really says:

Age is another demographic characteristic that affects attitudes on this issue. Opposition to gay marriage is most pronounced among older Americans, with more than two-thirds (67%) of those age 65 and older opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage. On the other hand, roughly half of all adults under age 30 (49%) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed.

N.B AE, it asked about marriage not civil unions, and if you remove the 25 to 30 year olds, you’re most likely to see the majority of them support same-sex marriage.

So I guess since YOUR opinion is not representative of ANY generation, you would agree that we should ignore YOU?

Well I just showed that your poll was either outdated or bunk and that taken the margin of error into consideration, the majority of youth so support by YOUR claimed source. Perhaps we should ignore YOU instead since you don’t bother to check your sources?

But thank you for illustrating so clearly how gay liberals regularly want to silence everyone who opposes them.

Throwing in a false claim and a non-sequitur. Typical of the sycophants of the blog.

Americain Elephant = FAIL

hmm…i hasten to add that by your logic, you are also promoting a gay marriage foe by virtue of this post.

I guess being on the left requires a distortion of reality that would make a supermassive black hole all humble and stuff.

The only homosexuals who are self-loathing are those such as you who consider themselves victims who need government to protect and validate them. Pathetic.

Love how ABC doesn’t allow anyone to look at their methodology.

Newsflash: Poll of liberals finds majority lurch towards liberalism!!!!

But as Dan just reminded you, we just had a REAL poll in California just a few months ago and a large majority amended that state’s constitution, effectively prohibiting gay marriage.

I imagine that sucks pretty bad for pathetic losers who have no self-worth and need government to validate their very existence. But since I’m not one of said pathetic losers, I can only imagine. So, why don’t you tell us? Does it make you cry?

Must be bad to be a self-loathing homosexual like you are

What you’re stating doesn’t negate my statement on ‘traditional’ marriage

Sorry Rob,

You are wrong on all counts. You are pulling definitions of marriage out of your ass. Furthermore you are confusing the reasons individuals decide to get married and the state interest in marriage. They are not the same.

The people have decided, through their elected representatives that the purpose of marriage is what I stated above. The courts have upheld it. It also happens to be the function marriage performs to society.

You have stated some of the reasons some people have gotten married and decreed that they are the definition of marriage.

Some women get married because all their friends are married. That doesnt make it the definition of marriage.

My definition is supported by statute, yours have NEVER been adopted or supported by anyone anywhere.

You mention that the new definition erases the entire function of the institution, something we hear primarily from the antigay croud, yet you do not explain how that occurs.

zzzzzzz @ your consistent “anti-gay” branding. Supporting traditional marriage is not anti-gay. Give it up. Its tired, childish and asinine.

The states have said that marriage exists to encourage men and women to unite in legally binding relationships so that children will be born into the security of these relationships and raised by their natural parents.

CA and MA courts have said this CANNOT be the definition of marriage because it excludes gay couples — which is true — it does. Marriage where gay marriage has become reality have turned an institution that served a fundamental, crucial purpose to society — that encouraged an ideal, into an institution that has NO meaning and is nothing more than another entitlement program.

No, traditional marriage — where the state encourages men and women to join together in a legally binding relationship so that as many children as possible are born INTO those ideal circumstances instead of outside of them. The definition decided by the people’s duly elected representatives and recognized by the vast majority of courts.

The definition that recognizes the institution serves a purpose to society and not the new definition that erases the entire function of the institution in favor of making it simply another big government entitlement.

What you’re stating doesn’t negate my statement on ‘traditional’ marriage. The states really got involved in the marriage business in the 17th century. Even the church didn’t get involved in it since the 15th century. Sure it was an arrangement for children to be produced: for plowing fields and filling workshops. It was an arrangment for survival and commerce rather than love. Oh, and the man was the head of the family and had the final say of course. That was the old definition of marriage, and it still continues in conservative third world countries. Western heterosexuals during the 20th century have radically changed its meaning when love became an important factor. You mention that the new definition erases the entire function of the institution, something we hear primarily from the antigay croud, yet you do not explain how that occurs.

I think it is vital to keep reminding people that Ms. Prejean’s original answer at the pageant stated gays have the choice to marry. We do not. It is important that we emphasize Prejean had her facts wrong.

My impression of the leaders of NOM is that they have worked out that we are reaching people’s hearts and sense of fairness because it is noble and good to want to be married and devote yourself to building a life with your spouse. So they are losing on those grounds. Thus they have latched onto Ms. Prejean as flame bait. They will have her do enraging things, then denounce anyone who responds to her angrily. It’s a perfect set-up.

How should we respond? What I see changing people to favor marriage equality are two things: (1) knowing someone who is gay or lesbian; and (2), loving that person enough to want them to have equal rights.

So I hope our gay and lesbian rights organizations — and bloggers — work to get as many of us as possible to come out, and to stay on the message that we have to be loving because that is that transformative power for achieving equality.

Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian