NJ Liberal, you are way off. GPW and most who share their opinions on here are not traitors to their “people”.

“Freedom is irrelevant. Self determination is irrelevant. You will comply.”

There are certainly some who are as hateful, if not more so, than those who oppose our lives but they are the minority. I had to laugh at the whine from the biggest basher this side of Fred Phelps about the names he is called. The real conservatives should be insulted by his nonsense.

For the second part: You both have points. I can see NDT’s point. Gay guys in our area (we live in the same metro area) tend to be hedonistic. I can’t speak about the lesbians, and it’s dangerous to generalize from personal experience, but my experience is that even the guys who would claim to be settled and/or religious have ‘charming’ tales of infidelity if they think their listener is sympathetic, will approach men for 3-ways, etc. I referred to a married friend earlier: he is faithful to his husband – that I know of – but he has a hedonistic past, and tells me of ongoing porn usage that he hides from his husband. I don’t know what to make of that; but for the record, very many gay guys in my area will defend and promote porn as ‘harmless’ and that isn’t true. I don’t think gay marriage will magically improve any of that. What I think it will do, once it is firmly established in law, is what it always does: provide a known, civilized path for those men (and women) who choose to accept it.

We haven’t had same sex marriage that long. We haven’t had a culture in which gay children growing up can see that they can get married

Exactly.

Okay, NDT. We have pinpointed our disagreement in this matter. Thanks.

But we cannot predict with nearly the degree of certainty that a heterosexual couple will or will not have children that we can with a homosexual couple.

In light of your comment above, I see why this fact is relevant to you. Since I see the value of marriage whether or not a couple can or choose to procreate, that fact is completely irrelevant to me.

The problem here, Pat, is that, having thrown out religion, sneered at morality, and preached pure hedonism as a worthwhile goal, the gay community has systematically dismantled the most powerful means of curbing irresponsible behavior and is now trying the excuse that a piece of paper will make them behave in a fashion that is good for society.

I guess our gay communities are different, NDT. Most of the gay people I know are just as religious as straight people. Further, they are, in general, no more or less hedonistic than straight people.

And I agree that simply having a piece of paper is not going to curb certain behaviors. It has to be more than that. I’m looking to have a culture of marriage for straight and gay persons to want to emulate. I have no illuisions that same sex marriage is going to eliminate gay promiscuity. Or even lessen it immediately. I’m looking at the long term. Nothing has been proved yet as you suggest. We haven’t had same sex marriage that long. We haven’t had a culture in which gay children growing up can see that they can get married as their straight brethren can. We still have a culture, unfortunately, where, still too often, gay children are excoriated for being gay, or hide their sexuality, try to play it straight and enter a sham marriage, etc. We’ve got a ways to go. It’s not just about the piece of paper, as you say, but it’s a good start.

just for fun. . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA

It also upheld that all of the rights of marriage must be made available to gay couples and straight couples, equally. It can be called something different, but it has to be the same.

>As for California, it’s no slam dunk that Prop 8 can be repealed in two years

True. But it’s pretty likely it will be within five years. Eight at the outside. The demographics in California between those who are oppose gay marriage and those who accept it are changing that fast.

The decision this week was a pretty hollow victory for the 8ers. It’s like getting the house but nothing within the house, including the piping, electrical work and carpeting.

#109: Two men marrying is preposterous because the general point of marriage is to provide an incentive for a stable male-female union from which the next generation arises and can be nurtured to adulthood. I don’t see this from the same-sex marriage crowd rather, as another suggests, it’s more of a case of “I wanna have all the benefits and oh BTW, my spouse and I, once we get married have agreed that a little fooling around on the side will be part of our arrangement.”

As for California, it’s no slam dunk that Prop 8 can be repealed in two years and there are few if any other states on the horizon for your side.

If that’s your experience, so be it. All I can tell is that almost all heterosexual couples get married because they “wanna.”

But I – donning my All-Powerful/All-Knowing/All-Wise State Hat – just said I don’t care about the “I wanna” argument: I do however see a benefit in heterosexual marriage in that these tend to produce lots and lots of little taxpayers/good citizens in the long term. A homosexual marriage produces nothing to the State except perhaps the sales tax on the wedding cake. Again, the state/society sees no real benefit from homosexual couplings; why should it encourage these? The best you should realistically aim for is tolerance. The day you vow eternal love and companionship to your same-sex partner before friends and family and government-sponsored ninjas rappel down from the rafters to bundle you off to Oral Roberts University for reeducation I’ll agree there’s a problem.

And if you think you’ve heard gay persons “blow whistles and scream obscenities,” it will be a picnic compared to the whistle blowing and obscenity screaming that you would hear if opposite sex couples were stripped of marriage.

But as I’ve said repeatedly heterosexual marriage is in the best interest of the state/society so that ain’t gonna happen. A society that doesn’t value marriage – the traditional kind – has dismal prospects. Europe has basically abandoned marriage as a worthwhile goal: Europe has a birth rate of 1.7 children per couple and that’s only because they’re counting in the Muslem subpopulation with its 3.2 children per couple birth rate. If homosexuals think they have it tough now, wait a couple of generations when Europe is under Sharia Law and all the (abandoned) churches are converted to mosques. What you’re talking about is a society committing cultural suicide. Homosexual marriage is (at present) a matter of vast indifference to the future of our society and the only way it becomes important is in a negative sense, if the birth rate for whatever reason plummets.

Eventually, if we develop technology to the point that we reproduce over the Internet (basically ordering our next generation from Babies.com), the question becomes moot. Society enters a new and unpredictable future. In 200 years my descendents, delivered fully grown from the factory w/o sex organs because these aren’t needed any more, will look back on this and wonder what all the fuss was about. It wouldn’t be the future heterosexuals envision but it certainly won’t be one that homosexuals look forward to.

Generally, yes. But we cannot predict with nearly the degree of certainty that a heterosexual couple will or will not have children that we can with a homosexual couple.

The primary purpose of marriage is, as Orion correctly points out, to provide the best possible environment for children. Serendipitously, the environment that is best for children also happens to be one that discourages irresponsible behaviors that are bad for society. However, one look at heterosexual marriage, especially in minority communities, should be proof enough that it by itself is not sufficient to discourage irresponsible behaviors that are bad for society, and that there are far better and more effective means to encourage responsible behaviors than simply handing over a marriage license.

The problem here, Pat, is that, having thrown out religion, sneered at morality, and preached pure hedonism as a worthwhile goal, the gay community has systematically dismantled the most powerful means of curbing irresponsible behavior and is now trying the excuse that a piece of paper will make them behave in a fashion that is good for society. In short, you are trying to argue for extending marriage based on what is at best a secondary benefit and proven to be highly ineffective to a group of people for whom the primary benefit of marriage is completely irrelevant.

What I’ve really been getting at is that homosexual unions are really personal decisions

No more so than heterosexual unions.

When I pose this question to homosexual activists I get a variation on one of two answers: (1) “Because I wanna!” or (2) they blow whistles and scream obscenities. Neither is a particularly attractive argument. If they ever come up with a third I’ll be glad to hear them out.

If that’s your experience, so be it. All I can tell is that almost all heterosexual couples get married because they “wanna.” And if you think you’ve heard gay persons “blow whistles and scream obscenities,” it will be a picnic compared to the whistle blowing and obscenity screaming that you would hear if opposite sex couples were stripped of marriage.

But I’ll try to give you answers different from 1) and 2). “Traditional” marriage has been modified for years. Sure some for worse, but most for better. While the basis of marriage as we know it may have been for having an optimal environment for children, it has become much more with that. We encourage, and should continue to encourage people to settle down with someone they love. This includes couples past childbearing years and couples who have no intention or unable to have children. Again, this is not something we do to avoid micromanaging couples’ decisions or abilities to have children. We still encourage and applaud these couples when they get married even when we know they are not going to have children. I’m saying that we should encourage same sex couples to do the same. And, of course, we should absolutely discourage gay persons to marry someone of the opposite sex (can we at least agree to that?). The same benefits to the state for allowing opposite sex couples to marry, even if they choose or can’t have children would also apply to same sex couples. Or are you saying that marrying opposite sex couples who don’t have children provides no benefit?

Again, this argument depends on claiming that the tiny, tiny fraction of heterosexual couples who are biologically incapable of procreating are somehow equivalent to the 100% of gay couples who cannot procreate.

Homosexual couples can procreate: Just not with each other at the moment. But you’re correct; the failure to encourage marriage does not mean we should break it worse than it already is.

What I’ve really been getting at is that homosexual unions are really personal decisions: the State has no interest in these and no need to encourage or endorse them. I’ve asked this question on and off for years and never gotten a satisfactory answer: “What’s in it for me – the State, that is – to grant a marriage license?” The answer for heterosexuals is fairly straightforward: The two-parent nuclear family unit with a mother and a father has been shown to be far superior in rearing good citizens than any alternative to date. Yes, there are functional “non-traditional” families but these are the exception rather than the rule. No, we don’t support “traditional” families as well as we should. We could (and should) do better).

When I pose this question to homosexual activists I get a variation on one of two answers: (1) “Because I wanna!” or (2) they blow whistles and scream obscenities. Neither is a particularly attractive argument. If they ever come up with a third I’ll be glad to hear them out.

I vote d) all of the above.

What the court did was affirm (over their personal distaste) was that the people have the right to ammend their constitution. This is a case where the ammendment may not be ‘right’ to some, but it isn’t a revision.

This is the danger of empathy in judges. We don’t need Judge Oprah. We need judges who understand that the law isn’t ‘nice’ or ‘naughty’ it’s Law.

Pat,
Thanks again for being on the blog’s comments. We may not agree on all things, but it’s nice to have a civil argument

Why is it preposterous, Desertcon? Or is it just saying so your only argument?

Anyway, your last statement is true in California, for about two more years, that is.

Second verse same as the first!

Heh, heh. I’m not a conservative gay. It’s actually very funny that you said that. If you read upthread, you’ll see that I support gay marriage. I actually think that, federally, under Equal Protection grounds, that we don’t have civil marriage is wrong. Argued that around here before. Usually until the crazies come out and it just becomes a chore to keep up.

My point was, I respect Dan’s opinion. I don’t agree with it. I also don’t agree with calling someone a traitor in debates like this because the definition doesn’t apply. Having a difference of opinion in how to advance a cause, even if its wrong, even if its profoundly wrong and ineffective , isn’t the same thing as betraying a cause.