Gay Patriot Header Image

Michele Bachmann’s fading presidential fortunes

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:18 am - October 4, 2011.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election

Save when the media unfairly pilloried (or left-wing activists assaulted and/or demonized) Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, I didn’t pay her candidacy much heed, largely because I  expected to her to fade early in the nominating process.

It looks like her campaign is fading ever more rapidly than I had forecast.  She barely broke into the single digits, scoring just 1.5%, in the recent Florida straw poll.  And now comes words that more aides are leaving her campaign:

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann is losing her pollster and senior adviser in a staff exodus that raises questions about the viability of her White House bid and her campaign finances.

Pollster Ed Goeas plans to leave the campaign after upcoming debates in New Hampshire and Nevada, and senior adviser Andy Parrish is returning to the Minnesota congresswoman’s office where he served as chief of staff.

Last month, Ed Rollins, Mrs. Bachmann’s campaign manager, and his deputy stepped down.

While I appreciate her ability to articulate the conservative message (on fiscal issues) with passion and conviction and acknowledge her commitment to Israel, I have long had concerns about her attitudes toward gay people.

She doesn’t appear to have responded to GOProud’s request for a meeting.  I won’t be shedding any tears at the fading of her political fortunes and hope her fall will allow more competent and less divisive conservatives to seize the Tea Party mantle to which she once laid claim.

UPDATE: Shortly after posting this piece, I e-mailed Chris Barron, Chairman of GOProud’s board to confirm the information in the first sentence of the concluding paragraph above.  He wrote back with this statement:  ”It is clear at this point a meeting is not a high priority for Rep. Bachmann. It is unfortunate. I think she has missed a real opportunity to confront and explain some of the things from her record.”

Share

109 Comments

  1. I’m from MN and have never really understood her popularity. As a Republican, I would have voted for her were I in her district, but I for a few years I’ve wondered if she wasn’t actually a liability to the GOP. (Fortunately, I’m in a neighboring district where I can be proud of the Republican I vote for.) She has never really shown a desire much less an ability to appeal to anyone who isn’t conservative and Christian. I myself am a conservative Christian, but I don’t want America to be just for people like myself.

    Given her stridency and repeated episodes of nuttiness, I have to wonder how long her district will tolerate her. Her district is Minnesota’s most conservative district, but I can see her losing at some point down the road if not next year. I hope she will allow someone else to be that district’s GOP nominee next year. Unfortunately, I’m pretty sure she will pull out of the presidential race in time to run for the House again.

    Comment by Chad — October 4, 2011 @ 7:51 am - October 4, 2011

  2. While I agree with some of her conservative feelings, she has a tendency to put her foot in her mouth all too often. I feel it’s a mater of not checking the facts before she responds. Her recent reaction to the Texas inoculations comes to mind.

    Comment by Tony — October 4, 2011 @ 8:01 am - October 4, 2011

  3. I hope she will stay in the game if for no other reason than to keep pounding the truth that none of the others are and that is that Obama care must be repealed before it starts kicking in or this country will suffer the consequences for a long, long time.

    Like her, I also don’t support SSM but for different reasons so I have no need to belittle her like Daniel has in his post.

    Comment by Richard Bell — October 4, 2011 @ 8:31 am - October 4, 2011

  4. I like her but she is just Palin-light. Although a tax attorney, she does not have enough cred with me to be POTUS. Also, found it interesting that my 15YO son does not believe that most other countries will respect a female president. I asked him, even one like Palin who commercial fishes in a extreme environment and hunts and dresses her own game? He said No. His background in our schools gives me pause. He has over 85 countries represented at his school and has since kindergarten. He has friends from all over the world, including a lot of middle eastern countries…

    She turned me off when she started attacking her fellow candidates. I imagine that most see these attacks as a sign of desperation not the strength we are looking for in our candidate.

    Comment by Texas Mom 2012 — October 4, 2011 @ 9:20 am - October 4, 2011

  5. I never bought her supposed creds as a fiscal conservative.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 4, 2011 @ 9:59 am - October 4, 2011

  6. Michelle Bachmann sank herself by overplaying the Tardasil/Liquid Whore card, but from the outset, any presidential campaign by a member of the House is a Quixotic quest. It is interesting to me that Bachmann, representing the most rightward mass of the GOP, was presented in the media as a dire threat and attacked accordingly. Her counterpoint, Dennis Kucinich, representing an even-more extreme fringe of the Democrat party, was also presented more warmly, as sort of kooky and idealistic but utterly harmless.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2011 @ 9:59 am - October 4, 2011

  7. It’s not over yet, as the liberal RNC is still unable to control the narrative as they did in 2008. The RNC continues to present left/right libertarians as their standard bearers and they continue to self-implode. Obama has chosen to go all-out passive-aggressive looking for the “you hurt my feelings” vote. All Cain and Bachmann have to do is stick to federalist principles and address the reversal of the incorporation doctrine and strict interpretation of the commerce clause. And if you thought the Tea Party gatherings were large, let the RNC chose a VP candidate that is constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS.

    Comment by rjligier — October 4, 2011 @ 10:36 am - October 4, 2011

  8. In the end, the only consequence of her candidacy will be to have knocked fellow Minnesotan Tim Pawlenty out. Sure, his candidacy would likely have faltered anyway, but by sucking up the same oxygen as him and going after him more than anyone else, she took away any chance he had, which I think is a shame since I think he had many of the same candidate qualities as Romney with fewer of the flaws. The fighting between the two of them was sad to see. I don’t think T-Paw handled it well, but MB to me has been, I think, totally disgraceful in how she has treated other candidates, especially T-Paw and then Perry. Contrast her with Gingrich. I haven’t been a fan of his candidacy in general, but I am a fan of how he has dealt with other candidates, which has generally been positive and more concerned with the eventual Republican nominee beating Obama than him becoming that nominee. (To be sure, MB’s criticisms may become a badge of honor by our nominee, given how much MB tends to marginalize herself with each passing week.)

    I myself am sort of undecided on SSM. But to those who are more strongly against it, don’t you think someone like MB is actually counterproductive in keeping legal recognition of marriage between one man and one woman? Do you think undecided people are going to become won over by how she handles social issues or turned off? I am quite certain it is the latter. Even on fiscal issues, I think she is counterproductive. Yes, ObamaCare is rotten and must be repealed, and yes, we need to slash our budget. However, by being as inflexible as she is, I think she shows herself unwilling to accept political realities, specifically that Democrats still control the Senate and White House. To drive a hard bargain, you actually need to bargain.

    And if all that wasn’t enough, her Gardasil-causes-mental-retardation garbage is just embarrassing, not just for her but also for the Republican party. Good politicians don’t get lost in the weeds. MB does. (I would also say that Santorum, whom I like much more than MB, also has the unfortunate habit of getting distracted by unimportant issues.)

    As a Minnesotan, as a conservative, and as someone who has seen and heard unfair and nasty attacks on Michele Bachmann, I want to like her and defend her. However, she’s just not the sort of Republican I think we need more of.

    Comment by Chad — October 4, 2011 @ 10:42 am - October 4, 2011

  9. Don’t you think someone like MB is actually counterproductive in keeping legal recognition of marriage between one man and one woman?

    Not really, no. I understand that the media controls the narrative. There are people capable of making rational and sensible arguments against SSM, but the media is quite careful to make sure the only opponents allowed to make their voices heard are the ones that are easiest to demonize and discredit.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2011 @ 11:04 am - October 4, 2011

  10. <blockquote.Not really, no. I understand that the media controls the narrative. There are people capable of making rational and sensible arguments against SSM, but the media is quite careful to make sure the only opponents allowed to make their voices heard are the ones that are easiest to demonize and discredit.

    Yawn… The “rational and sensible arguments” are precisely the ones that get ridiculed, because they’re not seen by many as rational and sensible arguments. I get a little sick of blaming the MSM for the lack of quality in some “conservative” positions. Sometimes, the position is at fault, not the MSM.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 4, 2011 @ 11:35 am - October 4, 2011

  11. How exactly does one ridicule the position that same sex relationships, because they have dynamics that are distinct from heterosexual marriage and do not benefit society in the same way as heterosexual marriage do not merit the identical form of recognition as traditional marriage?

    To me, the dumb bumper sticker slogans of the pro-gay marriage side are the arguments worthy of ridicule.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2011 @ 11:42 am - October 4, 2011

  12. Michele Who?

    Reasons no-one’s supporting her these days;
    1. How can you support someone who can’t even spell the own first name correctly?
    2. With her much-touted advanced degrees, she’s not very bright.
    3. Her creepy gay-faced husband.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 4, 2011 @ 12:16 pm - October 4, 2011

  13. How exactly does one ridicule the position that same sex relationships, because they have dynamics that are distinct from heterosexual marriage and do not benefit society in the same way as heterosexual marriage do not merit the identical form of recognition as traditional marriage?

    See, that’s EXACTLY the failed argument I speak of. What “dynamics”? The ability to produce children in a “natural way”, NDT’s favorite argument? That’s meaningless. Children are produced regardless of marriage status. Being gay does not make you a bad parent any more than being straight makes you a good one. And as much as anti-SSM advocates have tried, they still have not shown that letting .02% of the population of consenting same-sex adults marry each other harms society in any way. It doesn’t. Except for going outside of and breaking tradition, it hurts nobody.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 4, 2011 @ 12:20 pm - October 4, 2011

  14. Have to go work now. Will respond later.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 4, 2011 @ 12:20 pm - October 4, 2011

  15. Her creepy gay-faced husband.

    I really, really hate the obsession with irrelevant crap like this. It’s like “Chris Christie is fat.” WTF cares?

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2011 @ 12:21 pm - October 4, 2011

  16. I wasn’t referring to parenthood specifically, but I think it is a relevant difference. I meant that there is a dynamic in a relationship between two men or two women that is different than the dynamic between a man in a woman, in terms of how they relate to each other emotionally, in terms of how they behave toward one another, and even … as activists have made clear… even in expectations of fidelity. (Short version: in gay relationships, there aren’t any.)

    It’s rather a cop-out to deny that these differences exist, or that they don’t matter. The purpose of traditional marriage is to create a stable social unit. Stable social units benefit society. Throwing a mass of relationships in which there is no expectation of stability is harmful; whether those relationships are gay or straight.

    I blame heterosexuals for devaluing marriage through easy divorce and “serial monogamy.” I think same sex marriage is the end point of a decline that has been in progress for two generations now.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2011 @ 12:28 pm - October 4, 2011

  17. *snapping fingers*

    Now who was it that predicted she would flame out in the GOP race. Hmmmm…. who was it….. ???

    Comment by GayPatriot — October 4, 2011 @ 2:38 pm - October 4, 2011

  18. The demise of her campaign cannot come soon enough. Good riddance.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 4, 2011 @ 2:53 pm - October 4, 2011

  19. Michelle Bachmann sank herself by overplaying the Tardasil/Liquid Whore card

    That’s pretty much it.

    If anything, I think it’s hilarious that she, the self-proclaimed Washington outsider, pushed a line of attack that was designed based on the stereotype that Washington insiders have of conservatives, Republicans, and Tea Party members hating modern medicine, hating science, blah blah blah.

    It was utterly foolish of Perry to try to make Gardasil vaccination a mandate in the first place, and he did it in the worst possible manner and for the worst possible reason — an executive fiat for a vaccine manufactured by a single company with the intent of forcing health insurance companies to pay for it. What he should have done was to make his case that this was important and set up a mechanism through the public health system to make it eligible for those people who wanted it and couldn’t afford it to get it. THAT the Texas Legislature would likely have had no problem with doing.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 4, 2011 @ 3:23 pm - October 4, 2011

  20. See, that’s EXACTLY the failed argument I speak of. What “dynamics”? The ability to produce children in a “natural way”, NDT’s favorite argument? That’s meaningless. Children are produced regardless of marriage status.

    Which is and has always been my point, Sonic.

    Marriage does not exist to produce children; that has been done since time immemorial regardless of marriage status. Marriage exists to encourage people to raise and support the children they produce. It is not a means to regulate procreation; it is a means to manage the natural output of procreation. Society privileges it and susidizes it because it creates a natural cost-sharing model in which those who procreate bear a significant portion of the cost and resources required for raising the children produced — versus single or no parenthood, in which case the community (state) must absorb the full cost of raising the children produced.

    Hence the point. Marriage makes sense for heterosexuals because it provides an ideal environment for managing, raising, and supporting the natural outgrowth of heterosexual activity. But since homosexual activity does not produce the same natural output, there is no reason to treat it similarly or for society to subsidize it or otherwise promote it.

    In short, there is really no public good or public value provided by gay-sex marriage. Why, then, should society fund it or subsidize it?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 4, 2011 @ 3:35 pm - October 4, 2011

  21. In short, there is really no public good or public value provided by gay-sex marriage. Why, then, should society fund it or subsidize it?

    I think there could be some potential benefit to recognizing same-sex commitments (which is why I’m cool with civil unions), but it is clear from the writings of SSM activists that commitment is not part of the marriage formula for them. Look no further than the writings of Dan Savage, the lefty gay sex advice guru, who thinks infidelity and multiple partners within a relationship are just terrific.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2011 @ 3:47 pm - October 4, 2011

  22. I meant that there is a dynamic in a relationship between two men or two women that is different than the dynamic between a man in a woman, in terms of how they relate to each other emotionally, in terms of how they behave toward one another,…

    What is that difference, and how is that even relevant? Remember that I have been in love with a woman – came close to asking her to marry me. I really loved her (and always will) and the only difference between my feelings for her and those I feel for the Sonic-Mate is that I’m more completely attracted to him.

    …and even … as activists have made clear… even in expectations of fidelity. (Short version: in gay relationships, there aren’t any.)

    Bullshit! Why do you insist on taking the views of a few obnoxious gays and smearing the rest of us with them. I mean, you get upset when liberals do the same with the views or utterances of outside-of-mainstream Christians – Westborough Church for example – and slander all of Christianity with them. Do you think you have a problem being faithful because your gay? Do you think NDT is more likely to cheat because he is gay? Do you think Dan would not be faithful when he finds the guy to settle down with? Do you think I’m more likely to cheat because I’m gay? To me, this is just as offensive as straight people automatically assuming all gay men take it up the ass (which always seemed to come up as a given when my conservative room-mates talked about “gay”, which they didn’t know I was), or the notion that was out there in the late 80′s and early 90′s that if you were gay, you probably had AIDS.

    BTW…. Nice typo!!! “that is different than the dynamic between a man in a woman”

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 4, 2011 @ 3:51 pm - October 4, 2011

  23. Sonic, since NDT and I have only linked to our examples a couple hundred times over the years, why don’t you show us some links to the SSM advocates who proclaim, “And once we have full marriage rights, we should endeavor to commitment and monogamy.” And I’m not talking about those who claim, without evidence, that this will somehow magically result from the legalization of SSM (like George W Bush believed giving mortgages to people with bad credit would make them financially responsible), I am talking about gay SSM activists who insist that monogamy and commitment are a responsibility and should be the basis of gay partnership.

    ‘Cos all I ever hear is a lot of bleating about ‘Equality’ from people who want the same benefits without the same responsibilities.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2011 @ 4:36 pm - October 4, 2011

  24. I come not to praise Bachmann, nor to bury her.

    She was the best female declared candidate for the Republican nomination yet. She came out of the gate with all the rest and worked hard in Iowa. Now, going into the backstretch, she is running in the mud.

    That is the way these races often turn out.

    Having said that, kudos to Bachmann for a valiant try and should she manage to reverse her fortunes, I am still open to her candidacy.

    Even at this point, I would rank her well above Pelosi, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Obama, Reid and a boatload of Democrat critters past and present.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 4, 2011 @ 4:42 pm - October 4, 2011

  25. Heliotrope,
    “Even at this point, I would rank her well above Pelosi, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Obama, Reid and a boatload of Democrat critters past and present.”

    *Enthusiastic applause breaks out and fills the room*

    Comment by Richard Bell — October 4, 2011 @ 5:32 pm - October 4, 2011

  26. why don’t you show us some links to the SSM advocates who proclaim, “And once we have full marriage rights, we should endeavor to commitment and monogamy.”

    OK, I’ll likely not find anyone who says those word exactly, but this isn’t hard. Here’s one.

    Here’s another.

    Here’s another.

    Can’t forget Dale Carpenter

    Here is some research that shows gays who get married are just as monogamous as straight are. It’s dated, from the 90′s, but there is no reason to suspect that, despite the headline grabbing media whore Dan Savage gets, that this has somehow changed.

    Quote:

    A frequent challenge to the legitimacy of gay relationships, leveled primarily at gay men, is that we’re all too sex-obsessed to keep monogamous commitments. There are several ways to respond to this criticism. First of all, more gay men are monogamous than many people, including many gay men, believe. In an Advocate sex survey in the ‘90’s of over thirteen hundred gay men, for instance 52% reported that in their current or last relationship they had been monogamous, and 77 percent said that they preferred monogamous relationships to open relationships.

    And Joy Behar doesn’t know what she’s talking about!

    I have to ask again; why do you guys let the squawking idiots who get the headlines influence you views so much. Why do you give then so much power over your own thought processes, and give them more credit than they deserve?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 4, 2011 @ 7:23 pm - October 4, 2011

  27. spam filter?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 4, 2011 @ 7:24 pm - October 4, 2011

  28. spam filter?

    Sorry about that, sonic. Fixed it.

    Comment by Eric Olsen — October 4, 2011 @ 7:25 pm - October 4, 2011

  29. I have to ask again; why do you guys let the squawking idiots who get the headlines influence you views so much. Why do you give then so much power over your own thought processes, and give them more credit than they deserve?

    Amen, Sonic. Been guilty of that myself on occasion. :-(

    Comment by Eric Olsen — October 4, 2011 @ 7:27 pm - October 4, 2011

  30. They get the most attention in the press because they are more headline worthy than the more pedestrian idea of gays being monogamous… That just doesn’t sell, just doesn’t fit the stereotype. Remember a few years back, after Rosanne went off the air, John Goodman starred in a TV comedy called “Normal Ohio” where he played a character that was an average Joe, and was also gay. It didn’t last a whole season. That might have been because it wasn’t funny, but here is what the wiki says about it:

    The show was most notable for the divisions it exposed regarding American culture’s view of homosexuality. Gamble was an average blue collar guy with many traits typical of American masculinity, including a love of football and beer, and very few of the traits stereotypically associated with gay men — and yet his sexuality itself was signified in part by isolated moments of more stereotypically gay behavior, such as singing snippets of Broadway show tunes and helping his sister to dye her hair, that were seemingly at odds with the way his character was presented most of the time. As a result, many media outlets dismissed Goodman’s role as unrealistic.

    Why did the writers feel they had to include the obvious “gay” tells? It’s because what they think we expect. It’s what they think gays are, because those are the ones they are exposed to – the Hollywood artsy types. Now that more average people are more comfortable with be whole and not lying to society, I wonder if this tendency will change?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 4, 2011 @ 7:52 pm - October 4, 2011

  31. I kind of lost track of the point I was going to make with that last comment.

    Oh well, have to go solder the new 1/4 audio plug to the speaker wire to be used for tonight’s band practice.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 4, 2011 @ 7:53 pm - October 4, 2011

  32. So, your sources are a guy who’s flacking his dating service, a guy who admits ” gay culture and gay media promote the mistrust of love by celebrating casual sex as an ideal,” a gay Christian who doesn’t appear to be an outspoken gay marriage advocate, a gay civil rights lawyer who adheres to the “marriage will magically make promiscuous gays faithful” talking point (just like mortgages make deadbeats financially responsible), and a survey conducted by the Advocate about which we have no knowledge about the controls or the questions asked. So half the gays were monogamous in their current or most recent relationship. Was that this week’s relationship or last week’s?

    The one who comes closest to making the point that gay couples ought to be committed and monogamous is the Christian dude, naturally. And yea for him. But I note that his belief in monogamy and commitment, as his essay makes clear, is rooted in his Christian beliefs… which are roundly ridiculed and rejected by the gay community as a whole as we see in this forum on regular occasions. The others fall somewhat short of the stated objective in the ways described.

    I never said it was impossible for gays to be committed, only that the gay marriage advocacy front does not view commitment and fidelity as essential traits to marriage. It’s all about the benefits; as Carpenter’s essay makes clear.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2011 @ 8:43 pm - October 4, 2011

  33. So, your sources are a guy who’s flacking his dating service, a guy who admits ” gay culture and gay media promote the mistrust of love by celebrating casual sex as an ideal,”

    First guy is promoting his dating service, but what’s the crux of the message he is using? Monogamy is good! He is advocating it, and making money to boot. I thought you liked the free market?

    Second guy says plainly. quote: “loving, monogamous sexual relationships are vital to personal contentment”. He is advocating for monogamy.

    On Dale Carpenter… You may not like that part of his rational, but he’s still advocating for monogamy.

    I never said it was impossible for gays to be committed, only that the gay marriage advocacy front does not view commitment and fidelity as essential traits to marriage. It’s all about the benefits; as Carpenter’s essay makes clear.

    Again, why do you care what those louts think? It’s what you think, and what you do in the context of your life, that matters! Not theirs! Even if some of them do get married, but live a swinging lifestyle (that 70′s term dates me) they are irrelevant. It’s what you do in your live that matters.

    If you’re so concerned about the lack of voices for gay monogamous relationships, why not start your own advocacy group promoting it?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 4, 2011 @ 9:13 pm - October 4, 2011

  34. Have to go to band practice now.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 4, 2011 @ 9:13 pm - October 4, 2011

  35. Um, my point wasn’t that there weren’t gays that believed in monogamy, there are, just as there are French people who smell nice and Russians who don’t drink. My subpoint was that monogamy and fidelity are not broadly considered to be essential elements of marriage by gay marriage advocates. My larger point was that the dynamic of homosexual relationships is a different one than heterosexual relationships; fidelity and parenthood being but two aspects of it, albeit aspects of paramount importance.

    As someone wiser than me once said, women saying men are complicated is like chess saying tic-tac-toe is complicated. Men and women might as well be different species, our wiring is so different. It takes a strong, well-structured institution to bridge the differences between them. That’s what marriage is for; creating a stable environment for two species whose cooperation is essential to survival but difficult to maintain. And rather than breaking down an institution that isn’t made for the dynamic of same-sex relationships; gays would be better served to develop institutional arrangements suited the dynamics of their own relationships.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2011 @ 9:41 pm - October 4, 2011

  36. I’m glad voters decided not to unleash Christine O’Donnell the Sequel on us, but I need her to stick around. Romney needs Bachmann to hang around in Iowa to splinter the vote between herself, Perry, and Cain, so he can get the surprise win. Mitt better start funneling her some money, he needs a splintered tea-party vote to win this election.

    Hold on Michelle, hold on for a few more months!

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — October 4, 2011 @ 9:51 pm - October 4, 2011

  37. Um, my point wasn’t that there weren’t gays that believed in monogamy, there are, just as there are French people who smell nice and Russians who don’t drink. My subpoint was that monogamy and fidelity are not broadly considered to be essential elements of marriage by gay marriage advocates.

    So, that one subgroup defines what gays are, even though your own life, and that of so many here on this forum, says otherwise? Why do you buy into the insular crap these guys peddle?

    My larger point was that the dynamic of homosexual relationships is a different one than heterosexual relationships; fidelity and parenthood being but two aspects of it, albeit aspects of paramount importance.

    But you haven’t even shown that, despite the advocacy of the non-monogamous relationship by some, that gays in long term relationships are not equally as committed as straights. As far as parenting, there is more and more evidence piling up that shows gay parents are just as capable of raising good, healthy children as straight couples do.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 5, 2011 @ 1:28 am - October 5, 2011

  38. Even if fidelity and commitment were the norm within gay relationships, I would still not support same-sex marriage for the reasons previously stated.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2011 @ 5:58 am - October 5, 2011

  39. BTW, why should I care what Dale Carpenter’s opinion is? Appeals to authority are fallacious arguments anyway, but if Dick Cheney’s opinion on gay marriage doesn’t sway me, why should some other mook’s opinion be any more persuasive.

    If you want to bring me over to your side of the argument, forget the emotional appeals and the appeals to authority and make your case using reason, as reason is the basis for my position. And to make a reason-based case for identical marriage rights for same-sex and different sex couples, it is only necessary to demonstrate two conclusions.

    1. That the degree and type of benefit society receives from committed monogamous same-sex relationships is identical to the benefit received from different-sex relationships.

    2. That the psychological, social, emotional and sexual dynamics within same-sex and opposite sex couples are identical, and thus can be accommodated by a one-size-fits-all institution of marriage.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2011 @ 8:37 am - October 5, 2011

  40. Do you think NDT is more likely to cheat because he is gay?….Do you think I’m more likely to cheat because I’m gay?

    Yes to both.

    The reason is that the gay and lesbian community and culture is openly hostile toward monogamy, fidelity, and commitment, and rewards promiscuity and irresponsibility.

    You are more likely to cheat, Sonic, because, in the gay and lesbian community, there are no social penalties for it. Indeed, the leadership of the gay and lesbian community like Dan Savage openly promotes infidelity, promiscuity, and non-monogamy. Look at GLAAD, who promotes promiscuous individuals like Joe Jervis. Look at Pam Spaulding, who rants against monogamy and who endorsed and supported serial adulterer John Edwards.

    Interestingly, the Advocate story you quoted neglected the comparative results, which I think are quite illuminating. The Advocate quoted this part:

    Among gay men, the percentage who cheated on a partner they lived with dropped to 59% from 83%; for lesbians it declined to 8% from 28%.

    But completely missed this part:

    The percentage of heterosexual men who reported having sex with someone other than their wife dropped to 10% in 2000 from 28% in 1975; among married women, it declined to 14% from 23%.

    Put bluntly, gay men are nearly six times more likely to cheat than are straight men.

    Furthermore, Sonic, as you are fond of reminding people, marriage does not prevent infidelity. Gays and lesbians will be no less promiscuous and no less irresponsible with it.

    Meanwhile, you are right, I live my own life as I see fit, not because of what Dan Savage says. But I am aware that I am a distinct minority in the gay community; moreover, I do not NEED gay-sex marriage to feel good about myself, and I certainly see no reason to extend something which offers society no benefits in exchange for the cost to a community whose leadership, whose prime personalities, and whose overwhelming culture oppose the idea of fidelity and responsibility on which it is based.

    In short, Sonic, and to echo V the K, you have not provided a single example of the benefits gay-sex marriage provides to society. My take on that is that you’re not alone; through tens of thousands of years of human civilization, no society has decided to accord equal weight and value to gay-sex relationships as opposed to heterosexual ones, and that is because they were not able to find any reason why it should be equally privileged, encouraged, and benefitted.

    I find it hard to believe that is because they were all stupid.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2011 @ 11:40 am - October 5, 2011

  41. If you want to bring me over to your side of the argument, forget the emotional appeals and the appeals to authority and make your case using reason, as reason is the basis for my position.

    V, I’m not trying to bring you over to my side…. I know that can’t be done. You are as cemented in your views on this as I am in mine. I’m not appealing to authority. You simple asked me to post advocates of monogamous gay relationships, and I did so.

    As someone wiser than me once said, women saying men are complicated is like chess saying tic-tac-toe is complicated. Men and women might as well be different species, our wiring is so different. It takes a strong, well-structured institution to bridge the differences between them. That’s what marriage is for; creating a stable environment for two species whose cooperation is essential to survival but difficult to maintain. And rather than breaking down an institution that isn’t made for the dynamic of same-sex relationships; gays would be better served to develop institutional arrangements suited the dynamics of their own relationships.

    So you support beastiality?

    Just Kidding.

    That is the weirdest defense of denying same sex partners the privilege of marriage I think I’ve ever seen…. and again relies on a stereotype; the “Women Are From Venus, Men Are From Mars” type thing. And it falls flat.

    1) The history of marriage has not been some delicate balance between two opposites that can barely survive together and / or raise kids if they don’t get married. Through much of human history, marriages were used for many purposes – arranged for one family to gain tribal status or political power, to gain wealth from the brides dowry, etc.. They all pretty much had one thing in common – women had no power. They were subservient to their husbands! There was no balance at all. As a rule, the male controlled pretty much everything. He could, and often did go out and have flings or have a mistresses without consequence, yet, as we see in many Muslim societies, the women can be killed by the husband if she does the same.

    2) We are not a different species. We only differ by XX and XY chromosomes. Even in term of Creation, woman was made from a mans rib, not a goats, or a goldfish.

    Yes, men and women do sometimes think differently (as do the Sonic-mate and I), but obviously, marriage is not needed in order for the opposite sexes to get along, live together faithfully, produce and successfully raise kids, grow old together, etc, etc. So again, what is this special dynamic that you mention yet have such a hard time defining, that precludes marriage only being restricted to opposite sex couples, and not to same sex couples?

    Comment by sonicfrog — October 5, 2011 @ 11:42 am - October 5, 2011

  42. Interestingly, the Advocate story you quoted neglected the comparative results, which I think are quite illuminating. The Advocate quoted this part:

    Among gay men, the percentage who cheated on a partner they lived with dropped to 59% from 83%; for lesbians it declined to 8% from 28%.

    But completely missed this part:

    The percentage of heterosexual men who reported having sex with someone other than their wife dropped to 10% in 2000 from 28% in 1975; among married women, it declined to 14% from 23%.

    Put bluntly, gay men are nearly six times more likely to cheat than are straight men.

    Furthermore, Sonic, as you are fond of reminding people, marriage does not prevent infidelity. Gays and lesbians will be no less promiscuous and no less irresponsible with it.

    And yet the trend of in-relationship promiscuity is going down, even as the acceptance and privileges granted by society to same-sex couples are expanding. So either the genetic marker that makes homosexuals sex freaks is rapidly mutating and becoming recessive, or more and more of the gay population are ignoring what the loudmouths are preaching about free love and open relationships and are pursuing monogamous relationships.

    This survey is behind an academic wall, so I can’t get into the meat and bones of the thing. Just as in some of the global warming studies that are supposed to strongly support the worst fears of the alarmists, there are no doubt many caveats within the results. One would almost certainly be that, because homosexuals have been taught that cheating is not bad or no big deal, they are more likely to do so and be honest about it. Heterosexual are more likely to be taught that this is not good, and so may not cheat quite as much, and more important, when filling out a survey, much less likely to be honest about it.

    Do you believe that the reason why homosexuals are more promiscuous is because they are wired differently? If you believe that genetic does not in any way cause one to be homosexual, then how can a homosexual be genetically predisposed to be unable to maintain a monogamous relationship, thus not have the privilege of marriage.

    I ask one more time… Why does it matter what that other segment of gay culture advocates in relation to YOUR relationship, your commitment?

    Comment by sonicfrog — October 5, 2011 @ 12:15 pm - October 5, 2011

  43. Sonic, are you aware there is a difference in meaning between “are different species” and “might as well be a different species.” Because your argument sort of relies on those things meaning exactly the same thing, which they don’t.

    Why does it matter what that other segment of gay culture advocates in relation to YOUR relationship, your commitment?

    Because I’m not demanding recognition from the state for my relationship and they are.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2011 @ 12:23 pm - October 5, 2011

  44. But I am aware that I am a distinct minority in the gay community

    There is a cure for that – Don’t be in the “Gay Community”. Why are you so obsessed with them? I suspect there are a lot more of us who have settled down into monogamous relationships than you realize. We are that “silent majority” that just goes about our days and doesn’t make waves.

    moreover, I do not NEED gay-sex marriage to feel good about myself,

    Good.

    and I certainly see no reason to extend something which offers society no benefits in exchange for the cost to a community whose leadership, whose prime personalities, and whose overwhelming culture oppose the idea of fidelity and responsibility on which it is based.

    Do they “Oppose” fidelity? They say you don’t have to be faithful, not YOU MUST NOT BE faithful. It’s not some sort of Boolean gate where it’s either one or the other. Some in the community do have disdain for the idea of commitment and monogamy, and would never enter into a monogamous relationship. Who cares about them. I know of many who though that way then found it more satisfying to turn their backs on that idea and are happily in committed monogamous relationships. That applies to some of my straight friends too. I wonder what the break-down of age / cheating is in that survey? Odds are, the cheaters are by and large young 20-somethings, and the trend goes way down as the age goes up.

    I guess the best way to respond is this – You’re not marrying a culture, you’re marrying two individuals.

    Comment by sonicfrog — October 5, 2011 @ 12:39 pm - October 5, 2011

  45. I asked:

    Why does it matter what that other segment of gay culture advocates in relation to YOUR relationship, your commitment?

    You answered:

    Because I’m not demanding recognition from the state for my relationship and they are.

    Why does that matter to your relationship, your commitment?

    Comment by sonicfrog — October 5, 2011 @ 12:43 pm - October 5, 2011

  46. The basic problem, Sonic, is that you are incapable of recognizing differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

    That is because you are arguing in reverse. You want gay-sex marriage, so you automatically assume it must be right and then try to assemble the facts to support your argument.

    V the K and I, who do not want gay-sex marriage, are looking at this from the rational and societal point of view, which is able to recognize a) the biological differences between male and female, b) the psychological differences between male and female, c) the interpersonal relationship differences between male and female, d) the real and societal consequences of heterosexual activity versus homosexual activity, and e) the reality of ten thousand years of human history in which homosexuality and heterosexuality have been repeatedly evaluated by innumerable cultures in different times, spaces, and perspectives — with heterosexuality being more highly valued in every case.

    For heaven’s sake, even evolution sees homosexuality as a biological dead-end.

    Again. You have not provided a single benefit that gay-sex marriage provides society. You have not made a single cogent argument for why society should absorb the cost of gay-sex marriage and simultaneously devalue heterosexual marriage by comparison.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2011 @ 12:58 pm - October 5, 2011

  47. And what this all boils down to, Sonic: you want, nay DEMAND, that society recognize your homosexuality as exactly equivalent and equal to heterosexuality.

    That is wrong. You can scream, cry, and make demands all you want, but that basic fact remains: heterosexuality and homosexuality are NOT the same, and your attempt to make them so is pointless.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2011 @ 12:59 pm - October 5, 2011

  48. You have not provided a single benefit that gay-sex marriage provides society.

    Because it’s not about what benefits gay couples should provide to society, it’s about what benefits society must provide to gay couples.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2011 @ 1:08 pm - October 5, 2011

  49. For heaven’s sake, even evolution sees homosexuality as a biological dead-end.

    Um… No… If it did, then it wouldn’t exist.

    Comment by sonicfrog — October 5, 2011 @ 1:11 pm - October 5, 2011

  50. a) the biological differences between male and female,

    Allowing gays to marry dos not change that difference.

    b) the psychological differences between male and female,

    Allowing gays to marry does not change that difference.

    c) the interpersonal relationship differences between male and female,

    As I demonstrated earlier, the only dynamic that marriage changed in the relationship between male and female was that the woman typically became subservient to the male… not in a good way. Regardless, allowing gays to marry does not interfere with the resolution that you think marriage provides to resolve the interpersonal relationship differences between male and female.

    d) the real and societal consequences of heterosexual activity versus homosexual activity,

    Heterosexuals get STD just as homosexuals do. Irrelevant to the privilege of getting married, except that gays, like heterosexuals, may stray less when married, thus not participating in the spread of STDs.

    and e) the reality of ten thousand years of human history in which homosexuality and heterosexuality have been repeatedly evaluated by innumerable cultures in different times, spaces, and perspectives — with heterosexuality being more highly valued in every case.

    Thus perpetuating the gold standard of unequal treatment due to ancient, outdated prejudices.

    Comment by sonicfrog — October 5, 2011 @ 1:26 pm - October 5, 2011

  51. Thus perpetuating the gold standard of unequal treatment due to ancient, outdated prejudices.

    Yeah, let’s just go ahead and learn nothing from the previous 6,000 years of human history and see how that works for us.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2011 @ 1:29 pm - October 5, 2011

  52. Yeah, let’s just go ahead and learn nothing from the previous 6,000 years of human history and see how that works for us.

    And what do those 6000 years tell us about homosexuality? What do most of those 6000 years tell us about race relations, slavery, treatment of women? This is similar to the alternative medicine argument “they’ve been using ______ in China for centuries to cure A B C D -X Y Z”. Just because it’s been done for a couple of thousand years does not make it correct or prove its validity. It’s called the Appeal To Tradition fallacy. Just because something has been practiced for thousands of years does not make it valid or right. Hello Monarchy.

    So, what horrible thing will happen to society if we allow gays the same privilege to marriage as heterosexuals?

    Comment by sonicfrog — October 5, 2011 @ 1:46 pm - October 5, 2011

  53. And what do those 6000 years tell us about homosexuality? What do most of those 6000 years tell us about race relations, slavery, treatment of women?

    More than you’re willing to admit.

    Through most of those 6,000 years, there was an understanding between men and women; men’s access to Mr. Fuzzy was contingent upon men providing women with shelter, support, social status and responsibility for any offspring that resulted. Then came the ‘Sexual Revolution,’ where women were taught that they were somehow oppressed for wanting something tangible in return for access to their assets. Men were absolved of the responsibility for taking care of the women they slept with, and women were told if they took a pill it would all work out. Because modern society, you see, knew so much better than all of that “outdated” and “unequal” dogma that previous generations believed in.

    So, how well has this worked out for women, children, men, and society in general? Women’s sexual leverage over men has diminished to almost nothing, men are no longer expected to raise the children they sire, minority family structures have collapsed entirely and non-minority structures are increasingly rickety, men have become juvenlized.

    Good changes, do you think? Are we better off without all of those crazy oppressive morals our ancestors believed in?

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2011 @ 2:03 pm - October 5, 2011

  54. Just because it’s been done for a couple of thousand years does not make it correct or prove its validity. It’s called the Appeal To Tradition fallacy. Just because something has been practiced for thousands of years does not make it valid or right.

    And then there’s your argument, which is that just because something has been practiced for thousands of years, it is neither valid or right.

    Essentially, you’re saying that everyone who came before you is a bigoted, prejudiced idiot who lacks the intellectual firepower, mental capability, and emotional maturity that you possess.

    And this one was entertaining:

    Heterosexuals get STD just as homosexuals do. Irrelevant to the privilege of getting married, except that gays, like heterosexuals, may stray less when married, thus not participating in the spread of STDs.

    Except that heterosexuals get STDs AND babies.

    Granted, it’s no surprise that the vast majority of gays and lesbians see babies as nothing more than another STD to be treated the same way, but to see it spelled out so blatantly is still a bit of a shock.

    I guess when you look at a baby as something you just treat like syphilis, then your worldview becomes much more comprehensible.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2011 @ 2:55 pm - October 5, 2011

  55. Um… No… If it did, then it wouldn’t exist.

    Comment by sonicfrog — October 5, 2011 @ 1:11 pm – October 5, 2011

    Hemophilia exists. Tay-Sachs disease exists. Spina bifida exists. Down Syndrome exists.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2011 @ 2:58 pm - October 5, 2011

  56. Through most of those 6,000 years, there was an understanding between men and women; men’s access to Mr. Fuzzy was contingent upon men providing women with shelter

    You’re kidding, men didn’t have plenty of access to Mr Fuzzy if they weren’t married until the sexual revolution… Really??? Because prostitution is not the oldest profession, and the terms whore and slut don’t go back centuries. Men who joined Monasteries were never required to take vows of celibacy because, well, they didn’t have easy access to lose women throughout the countryside.

    Ah, the good ol’ days, when women were subjugated to their husbands, slavery was common, Monarchy ruled the day, when men were not seen as being born equal, and the derogatory term “bastard” not only labeled you as an automatic outcast from privileged society, but also labeled your mother as a whore or slut! Oh, and we had dueling then too. Another fine tradition, which led to the death of Alexander Hamilton (who could never have become president because he was a bastard), which left his wife a widow and his children fatherless. Yeah, I think we should go back to those traditions. It was all so much better back then.

    So, how well has this worked out for women, children, men, and society in general?

    See above. The answer, it’s not perfect, but, all in all, better than it used to be.

    And you still haven’t answered my question: What horrible thing will happen to society if we allow gays the same privilege to marriage as heterosexuals?

    Comment by sonicfrog — October 5, 2011 @ 3:13 pm - October 5, 2011

  57. What horrible thing will happen to society if we allow gays the same privilege to marriage as heterosexuals?

    Marriage will become a temporary social contract that provides access to a pinata of benefits with no expectation that any responsibility or commitment will be required in return. Much of this has already happened. Eventually, except for the deeply religious communities, the standards of family and social commitment throughout society generally will become the same as those that dominate Harlem, Detroit, and most other inner cities today.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2011 @ 3:55 pm - October 5, 2011

  58. Pretty much what was predicted by the conservative right as the outcome of liberal policy back in the sixties has come true; and the Utopian vision promoted by the social left has proven to be a pipe dream. That’s why I tend to be skeptical of social engineering and pessimistic about the effects of large changes in social mores.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2011 @ 4:00 pm - October 5, 2011

  59. And you are honestly saying with a straight, no pun intended, face that having millions of kids raised without fathers in the home and millions of children in poverty living in homes headed by single mothers, not to mention rampant rates of STD’s, abortion, and the huge social costs that result from all of the forgoing are “better than it used to be?”

    I guess if that is your standard for “better,” I see where you’re coming from vis-a-vis gay marriage.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2011 @ 4:09 pm - October 5, 2011

  60. This was pretty interesting as well.

    Ah, the good ol’ days, when women were subjugated to their husbands, slavery was common, Monarchy ruled the day, when men were not seen as being born equal, and the derogatory term “bastard” not only labeled you as an automatic outcast from privileged society, but also labeled your mother as a whore or slut!

    Generally that was because the only way that you could be produced as a bastard was if your two parents HAD been sleeping around outside marriage.

    So if commitment, fidelity, and responsibility are so important, then why are gays and lesbians getting upset when the perjorative is applied to those who clearly broke all three in regard to their marriage vows?

    It’s almost like…..they want there to be no negative consequences for infidelity, promiscuity, and irresponsibility. Which means, in the grand scheme of things, they see infidelity, promiscuity, and irresponsibility as being just as valid choices as commitment, fidelity, and responsibility.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2011 @ 5:52 pm - October 5, 2011

  61. Marriage will become a temporary social contract that provides access to a pinata of benefits with no expectation that any responsibility or commitment will be required in return.

    OK. Finally, an answer. Not a good one, but an answer. The percentage of gay persons in the United States is around 5 to 7%, depending on the survey. If you winnow it down to those who are in relationships, gay couples make up about 0.5%. We can figure that maybe half of those are in relationships where marriage is desired, or in states that allow it, is the relationship status. That brings us to 0.25% percent of the population in the US. Of those 0.25%, half of them, the number that shows up in the surveys NDT and I commented on concerning gays who would rather be non-monogamous, get married and continue that non-monogamous behavior. That brings the percentage of married non-monogamous to 0.125%. We have currently a US adult population of about 206 million. The amount of people who may want to be non-monogamous is 258,000. If half of the US adult population gets married, that means that 103 million people on average are married in the United States. So, if 258,000 gays get married and continue to cheat, that ruins the marriages, or the expectations of what mariage should be, for the rest of the 103 millions of Americans who are married?

    Considering that an average of 35% of US marriages end in divorce in a given year (yes, it’s actually a tricky stat to mess with, and it’s not the 50% that some claim), that is roughly 35 million who get divorced each year. And the percentage of those that are married “swingers” is estimated to be about 4 to 6%. As a percentage of married couples, even the 4% is far more than the .125% of gay “swingers”, at just over 8 million. So including non-monogamous gays who are likely to get married, that raises the number of swingers to 8.25 of those who do not adhere to monogamy in marriage.

    As there are many more hetero swingers than gay ones, even if gays are less likely to remain faithful than straights, explain again why the the tiny numbers of gays being able to get married who don’t wish to be monogamous changes a damned thing for the average heterosexual (and homosexual) who seeks the understood commitment of marriage? Why not give gays the privilege and choice to take the next step in a relationship to get married if they wish to do so?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 5, 2011 @ 6:28 pm - October 5, 2011

  62. NDT:

    Generally that was because the only way that you could be produced as a bastard was if your two parents HAD been sleeping around outside marriage.

    Point is, people have, and always will, boink one another regardless of marital status, which nullifies V’s contention that “Through most of those 6,000 years, there was an understanding between men and women; men’s access to Mr. Fuzzy was contingent upon men providing women with shelter”, which is absolute rubbish.

    Oh, and shouldn’t that be “Miss Fuzzy”????

    It’s almost like…..they want there to be no negative consequences for infidelity, promiscuity, and irresponsibility. Which means, in the grand scheme of things, they see infidelity, promiscuity, and irresponsibility as being just as valid choices as commitment, fidelity, and responsibility.

    Again with the Dan Savage lemmings. I’ll say this again – He, and his views on this topic, does not by any means represent the entire gay population by any stretch of the imagination.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 5, 2011 @ 6:46 pm - October 5, 2011

  63. I imagine similar arguments being held back in the 60′s when people debated liberalizing divorce laws and permitting more sex and violence in the media. “People who are unhappy in their marriages should be able to get out more easily. What does it affect *your* marriage if two people you don’t know get a divorce.” “I don’t think there’s any harm in showing a little more sex and violence in films and television. People in real life won’t be affected by what they see on TV.”

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2011 @ 6:54 pm - October 5, 2011

  64. that is roughly 35 million who get divorced each year.

    According to the bureau of the census, its more like 844K divorces per year. So, you’re only off by a factor of, um, about 40.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2011 @ 6:59 pm - October 5, 2011

  65. Point is, people have, and always will, boink one another regardless of marital status, which nullifies V’s contention that “Through most of those 6,000 years, there was an understanding between men and women; men’s access to Mr. Fuzzy was contingent upon men providing women with shelter”, which is absolute rubbish.

    The irony is you posting that following your rant about how unfair it was that people who did violate that were socially stigmatized, called by perjorative names, and and cast out of society.

    Which leads us to this.

    Again with the Dan Savage lemmings. I’ll say this again – He, and his views on this topic, does not by any means represent the entire gay population by any stretch of the imagination.

    Sonic, might I remind you that I was quoting your statement bemoaning the fact that people were criticized and cast out of society for having irresponsible and promiscuous sex outside of marriage?

    He is opposed to public stigma and sanction against those who have promiscuous and irresponsible sex outside marriage. You are opposed to public stigma and sanction against those who have promiscuous and irresponsible sex outside marriage. He certainly represents your views.

    So, if 258,000 gays get married and continue to cheat, that ruins the marriages, or the expectations of what mariage should be, for the rest of the 103 millions of Americans who are married?

    And as I always say for this one, Sonic, provide concrete and tangible proof of how allowing pedophiles to marry children, humans to marry animals, and people to marry blood relatives will harm your relationship.

    No societal value, no societal impact, nothing of the sort. You demand that others prove how they will be directly harmed by your relationship; you can prove it yourself.

    What we’re going to see really quickly is you whining about society, you whining about other peoples’ welfare, etc. — in short, all the arguments you just declared invalid.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2011 @ 7:16 pm - October 5, 2011

  66. Sonic, provide concrete and tangible proof of how allowing pedophiles to marry children, humans to marry animals, and people to marry blood relatives will harm your relationship.

    Let me guess. “Those things are icky, and so it’s unfair to make the comparison.”

    If I guess right, NDT, will you send me a box of Pumpkin Pie Pop Tarts?

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2011 @ 7:20 pm - October 5, 2011

  67. I imagine similar arguments being held back in the 60′s when people debated liberalizing divorce laws and permitting more sex and violence in the media. “People who are unhappy in their marriages should be able to get out more easily. What does it affect *your* marriage if two people you don’t know get a divorce.”

    And the entertaining thing, V the K: the liberals like Sonic who demanded those changes are now pointing to the divorce rate said changes created and insisting that marriage is “broken”.

    Why, it’s almost like they refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions and blame others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2011 @ 7:22 pm - October 5, 2011

  68. just have to throw this in…

    “I once stood before a Conservative conference and said it shouldn’t matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we’re consulting on legalising gay marriage. And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.” – British Prime Minister David Cameron.

    Comment by rusty — October 5, 2011 @ 8:52 pm - October 5, 2011

  69. Yeah, more of the “giving mortgages to deadbeats will make them financially responsible,” jive talk. (Not to mention David Cameron being to the left of John McCain and the Maine Sisters.)

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2011 @ 8:58 pm - October 5, 2011

  70. V, thanks for the correction.

    Sonic, might I remind you that I was quoting your statement bemoaning the fact that people were criticized and cast out of society for having irresponsible and promiscuous sex outside of marriage?

    And you’re OK with punishing a person for life based on decisions / actions his or her parents made, decisions which the child had no control over? Yeah, that’s moral and great for society.

    And as I always say for this one, Sonic, provide concrete and tangible proof of how allowing pedophiles to marry children, humans to marry animals, and people to marry blood relatives will harm your relationship.

    Children are not consenting adults. Animals are not consenting adults. Won’t argue over blood relatives as different states have different laws on both marriage between close relatives and also age. But I will remind you that pedophiles can marry other pedophiles.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 5, 2011 @ 9:29 pm - October 5, 2011

  71. I don’t think you answered NDT’s question, Sonic. But I think you won me a box of Pop Tarts.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2011 @ 9:37 pm - October 5, 2011

  72. Since we are not discussing the merits of “allowing pedophiles to marry children, humans to marry animals, and people to marry blood relatives will harm your relationship.” why waste my time?

    And no, you were wrong, I did not sat those were “icky, and so it’s unfair to make the comparison.”… So no pop tarts for you!

    BTW, for what it’s worth, your divorce figure is also incorrect. According to the 2010 census, 2.358 million got divorced last year. Here is the link.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 6, 2011 @ 12:14 am - October 6, 2011

  73. Honestly this sounds more like Log Cabin spin. Michele Bachmann is not running to be President of San Francisco. Why does she have to subscribe 100% to a gay agenda to have your favor?

    Comment by Kyle Raccio — October 6, 2011 @ 2:36 am - October 6, 2011

  74. Nice try, Sonic but those “divorced last year” figures count men and women separately. Since every divorce involves one man and one woman, it overstates the divorced number by a factor of two. In any case, citing a high divorce rate as an argument *for* same-sex marriage supports my point that your side views marriage as a temporary, obligation-free, social contract whose sole purpose is to access benefits.

    Also, it’s pretty obvious that you’re dodging the fact that although bestiality is nasty, incest is gross, and child sex is an abomination… none of them have any effect on your relationship whatsoever. But admitting so would negate the whole “it doesn’t affect you so why do you care” line of argument.

    If your side can’t be honest in one on one debate, why should we trust you’re being honest about your agenda in general?

    Comment by V the K — October 6, 2011 @ 6:11 am - October 6, 2011

  75. V the K, are there really pumpkin pie pop tarts? Anyway, I’ve enjoyed the debate between you and Sonicfrog about marriage. While I support same sex marriage, you are making rational arguments against them, even if I don’t agree with the arguments. And you are not making children as the sole argument, since otherwise, we should also prevent, or at least discourage those who cannot or do not want children to get married.

    Sonicfrog, you’ve made a compelling case for same sex marriage, but do agree with a couple of things V the K said. The dynamics between two men, a man and a woman, and two women are different. But I would argue that they are not different enough to make the case against same sex marriage. Heck, the dynamics between any married couple, same or opposite sex are different. Also, I don’t think that gay men are hardwired differently than straight men regarding promiscuity, as you suggest, but do see that even with complete acceptance of homosexuality, there is going to be more promiscuity amongst gay men than straight men. Despite women having the sexual freedom and liberty that men have, the prevailing attitude still is that many fathers don’t have a problem with their teenage sons getting some, but do have a problem if it was their teenage daughter. And it is more common to call a young woman a slut or a whore if she has had a couple of sexual partners, but not a man who has had a sexual partner for each day of the week.

    Despite all that, I believe it does benefit society if we encourage all adults to settle down, and commit to the person they love. I do believe that, in the long run, promiscuity will be reduced. But even if it doesn’t, I still support two consenting adults who want to commit to be able to marry.

    Comment by Pat — October 6, 2011 @ 6:33 am - October 6, 2011

  76. I believe it does benefit society if we encourage all adults to settle down, and commit to the person they love.

    I agree, but I don’t think changing the definition of marriage is the way to achieve that.

    Comment by V the K — October 6, 2011 @ 8:14 am - October 6, 2011

  77. Also, I think the whole ‘consent’ argument vis-a-vis child abuse and animal sex is a phony canard. Animals don’t consent to being killed and eaten. And there’s a long list of things children don’t consent to that we make them do anyway… everything from going to school to eating their vegetables.

    Animal sex, kid sex, and incest are wrong because they are immoral and indecent, not because animals and kids can’t give their consent. But, of course, to the left nothing is indecent or immoral except for tax cuts and interrogating terrorists to protect innocent lives.

    It takes a strong moral compass to be able to discern right from wrong; and one of the priorities of the left over… forever, basically… has been to obliterate these basic concepts. Their agenda depends on it.

    Comment by V the K — October 6, 2011 @ 8:19 am - October 6, 2011

  78. V seeing that my original (incorrect) cacls were counting the number of individual people got divorce, not the number of divorces, my corrected stat stands. Taking those more accurate metrics, if you want to convert that into the number of divorces, that would come out to about 1.192 million divorces. That is still a lot more people destroying the institution of marriage than the 258,000 non-monogamous married gays, and far less than the est 8 million married swingers who are destroying marriage.

    Oh, since it’s morning, and pumpkin Pop Tarts™ sounds like a good idea, I’ll argue (and repeat my sarcastic reply written a number of posts ago) that “Those things are icky, and so it’s unfair to make the comparison.” Enjoy your donut!!! :-)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 6, 2011 @ 11:29 am - October 6, 2011

  79. And you’re OK with punishing a person for life based on decisions / actions his or her parents made, decisions which the child had no control over? Yeah, that’s moral and great for society.

    If you don’t want your child to be labeled a bastard, Sonic, don’t go have irresponsible sex outside of marriage. Using what will happen to the child you produce to avoid consequences for your actions is nothing more than the most blatant and obvious hostage-taking, and shows exactly how little regard you have for the child in the first place.

    And frankly, given that you’re pro-choice, you have exactly zero problem with killing a child based on “decisions/actions his or her parents made, decisions which the child had no control over”.

    Furthermore, V the K nailed it here:

    Also, it’s pretty obvious that you’re dodging the fact that although bestiality is nasty, incest is gross, and child sex is an abomination… none of them have any effect on your relationship whatsoever. But admitting so would negate the whole “it doesn’t affect you so why do you care” line of argument.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2011 @ 11:52 am - October 6, 2011

  80. Also, I think the whole ‘consent’ argument vis-a-vis child abuse and animal sex is a phony canard…. Animal sex, kid sex, and incest are wrong because they are immoral and indecent, not because animals and kids can’t give their consent.

    No, it’s not a canard.

    A) We are talking strictly about an issue concerning what two consenting adults wish to be able to do, and

    B) We are not talking about “sex” with any of those, we are talking about marriage. Historically, men married women as early as 11 or 12 years old. In Medieval Europe, fathers could betroth their female children as young as 3 years old (not quite the same thing as being forced to eat your vegetables). Seeing that the average lifespan was about 42 years old, that made sense. In modern society, now that we live twice as long, we have the luxury of having much more time in life to have children, and women have the freedom to choose their partner, and chose whether or not to even have children. But we recognize that young people may not have the wisdom to make a good choices in those areas, thus, we have something called “age of consent” statutes concerning marriage.

    C) Don’t blame me. I’m not the one who time after time brings this irrelevant distraction into this conversation at the drop of a hat in the first place.

    Have to go work now

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 6, 2011 @ 12:01 pm - October 6, 2011

  81. PS. I know NDT did… But did you just call me a liberal????

    Thanks for the laugh! :-)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 6, 2011 @ 12:02 pm - October 6, 2011

  82. I’m not the one who time after time brings this irrelevant distraction into this conversation at the drop of a hat in the first place.

    No, you’re the one who dodges the question under the fig leaf of ‘consent,’ when the issue isn’t consent, it’s basic morality; which is clearly something you are not comfortable with. If you think the only reason it’s wrong to have sex with a kid or a dog is because they can’t give consent, that’s pretty effed up.

    we have the luxury of having much more time in life to have children

    Not so much. Life spans may have increased, but the period of fertility still has pretty much the same expiration date.

    Comment by V the K — October 6, 2011 @ 12:14 pm - October 6, 2011

  83. Sorry man, I’m not going to take your bait and switch. Having sex with a kid or dog is completely a different issue than whether or not to extend the privilege of marriage to gay couples, and is nowhere near the same on the moral equivalency scale.

    And life span matters a great deal; because people live longer, they have the luxury of postponing the decision to have children until later in life. Of course, some don’t decide, they just do right out of the gate… or before. But there is no longer pressure on modern Western societies to raise a child quickly before you die at 40.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 6, 2011 @ 12:29 pm - October 6, 2011

  84. Sorry man, I’m not going to take your bait and switch. Having sex with a kid or dog is completely a different issue than whether or not to extend the privilege of marriage to gay couples, and is nowhere near the same on the moral equivalency scale.

    All we’re asking, Sonic, is for you to explain how allowing any of these to marry, including incest and plural relationships, negatively affects your relationship.

    You keep going off into things like morality and societal value that you have already stated are irrelevant to the argument of whether or not relationships should be granted marriage. You have stated that the only reason to deny anyone marriage is if it harms your own relationship; therefore, we are asking you to provide valid examples of how your own relationship is harmed by allowing these other types of relationships to marry.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2011 @ 12:40 pm - October 6, 2011

  85. By refusing to answer the question, SF answers the question.

    Comment by V the K — October 6, 2011 @ 12:45 pm - October 6, 2011

  86. If you don’t want your child to be labeled a bastard, Sonic, don’t go have irresponsible sex outside of marriage. Using what will happen to the child you produce to avoid consequences for your actions is nothing more than the most blatant and obvious hostage-taking, and shows exactly how little regard you have for the child in the first place.

    Your solution to the problem of producing kids out of wedlock leaves much to be desired…. Because there is no punishment of the parents, especially the father. I have the same issue with the NCAA when they punish schools for the errant behavior of their student athletes. Look at USC and Reggie Bush and other players. By the time any punishment was handed down, the players who committed the infractions, and the coaching staff that let it happen are long gone and making millions in the NFL.

    They are off Scott-free.

    Meanwhile, the new players on the team, who were not there and had nothing to do with the other students misdeeds, get punished for crimes they did not commit.

    So, tell me, how does labeling the child a bastard punish the father when he’s not around to begin with???? To put it bluntly, he doesn’t give a fuck… OK, he did give a fuck, but that took all of 3 minutes.

    But I’m glad you clarified that you have no problem punishing a kid for the actions of others, circumstances that the child had absolutely no control over. Remind me why I should take anything you say about morality seriously?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 6, 2011 @ 12:49 pm - October 6, 2011

  87. You have stated that the only reason to deny anyone marriage is if it harms your own relationship.

    Bzzzzt! Wrong! I never stated that.

    Here was my question:

    Why does it matter what that other segment of gay culture advocates in relation to YOUR relationship, your commitment?

    A question which never got answered.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 6, 2011 @ 1:00 pm - October 6, 2011

  88. And what does it matter to your relationship if you never get a piece of paper signed by a bureaucrat expressing Official Government Approval?

    Comment by V the K — October 6, 2011 @ 1:05 pm - October 6, 2011

  89. Your solution to the problem of producing kids out of wedlock leaves much to be desired…. Because there is no punishment of the parents, especially the father.

    Isn’t that what you wanted?

    Monarchy ruled the day, when men were not seen as being born equal, and the derogatory term “bastard” not only labeled you as an automatic outcast from privileged society, but also labeled your mother as a whore or slut!

    You demanded that there be no punishment for producing kids out of wedlock, Sonic. You yourself have stated that this was nothing more than “ancient, bigoted prejudices”. You wanted there to be no stigma whatsoever attached to any of the parties involved.

    Now you got exactly what you wanted, and you don’t like the consequences.

    Perhaps if you had actually thought through WHY those stigmas existed in the first place, instead of having your usual knee-jerk response of “ancient, bigoted prejudices” to anything, you might have recognized that they existed to STOP people from engaging in this destructive behavior.

    Now you’ve created a mess, and you’re sitting here blaming the very conservatives who warned you not to do it for said mess.

    And this, again, was hilarious.

    But I’m glad you clarified that you have no problem punishing a kid for the actions of others, circumstances that the child had absolutely no control over.

    You missed my statement.

    If you don’t want your child to be labeled a bastard, Sonic, don’t go have irresponsible sex outside of marriage.

    If you don’t want a kid to be labeled a bastard, don’t produce one. If you do, the fact that they are is YOUR responsibility. You can scream and cry about how unfair it is, but all you’re doing is dodging the fact that YOU fooled around, YOU did something stupid, and now the child is suffering because of YOUR actions. Your own selfish stupidity is why your child is being harmed.

    And frankly, Sonic, if gay and lesbian parents are like you, doing stupid things and then using their children as shields, you should never be allowed anywhere near a child.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2011 @ 1:10 pm - October 6, 2011

  90. You demanded that there be no punishment for producing kids out of wedlock, Sonic.

    No. I demanded no such thing. What I point out is that you’re punishing the kid for being born out of wedlock. You’re not punishing the guilty party, the father, at all. And he doesn’t care. He deposits his sperm with no consequences to himself.

    Now you got exactly what you wanted, and you don’t like the consequences.

    ???? What???????

    Reading for comprehension would be a good class for you to take in the near future.

    If you don’t want a kid to be labeled a bastard, don’t produce one. If you do, the fact that they are is YOUR responsibility. You can scream and cry about how unfair it is, but all you’re doing is dodging the fact that YOU fooled around, YOU did something stupid, and now the child is suffering because of YOUR actions. Your own selfish stupidity is why your child is being harmed.

    Um… I don’t have any children. And why are you screaming????

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 6, 2011 @ 1:28 pm - October 6, 2011

  91. Now you got exactly what you wanted, and you don’t like the consequences.

    ???? What???????

    Reading for comprehension would be a good class for you to take in the near future.

    If you don’t want a kid to be labeled a bastard, don’t produce one. If you do, the fact that they are is YOUR responsibility. You can scream and cry about how unfair it is, but all you’re doing is dodging the fact that YOU fooled around, YOU did something stupid, and now the child is suffering because of YOUR actions. Your own selfish stupidity is why your child is being harmed.

    Um… I don’t have any children. And why are you screaming????

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 6, 2011 @ 1:30 pm - October 6, 2011

  92. You’re not punishing the guilty party, the father, at all. And he doesn’t care. He deposits his sperm with no consequences to himself.

    The hilarity in THAT statement comes from the fact that you specifically stated you DIDN’T want the parents punished. Remember this part?

    Monarchy ruled the day, when men were not seen as being born equal, and the derogatory term “bastard” not only labeled you as an automatic outcast from privileged society, but also labeled your mother as a whore or slut!

    I have zero problem with stigmatizing irresponsible men. I’m not sure where or how you and Pat grew up, but in my family and community, someone who skipped out on his kids and his filial responsibility was somewhere lower than dirt. I cannot comprehend the community you describe in which promiscuity equals status for men.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2011 @ 2:09 pm - October 6, 2011

  93. Nice way to take a quote out of context.

    You’re kidding, men didn’t have plenty of access to Mr Fuzzy if they weren’t married until the sexual revolution… Really??? Because prostitution is not the oldest profession, and the terms whore and slut don’t go back centuries. Men who joined Monasteries were never required to take vows of celibacy because, well, they didn’t have easy access to lose women throughout the countryside.

    Ah, the good ol’ days, when women were subjugated to their husbands, slavery was common, Monarchy ruled the day, when women [typo] were not seen as being born equal, and the derogatory term “bastard” not only labeled you as an automatic outcast from privileged society, but also labeled your mother as a whore or slut! Oh, and we had dueling then too. Another fine tradition, which led to the death of Alexander Hamilton (who could never have become president because he was a bastard), which left his wife a widow and his children fatherless. Yeah, I think we should go back to those traditions. It was all so much better back then.

    I was responding to the fallacy that men didn’t get laid unless they were married, and knocking down the false argument of tradition. Labeling a woman a slut or whore, or labeling a child a bastard, obviously did nothing to stop the sexual behaviors that resulted in the child being born out of wedlock. It only made it harder for people, both mother and child to succeed in life. I always thought that Conservatism endorsed giving people an equal chance to succeed in life. Well that is hindered if you are wearing a scarlet letter or derogatory label, given to you by those same Conservatives. As much as you would like to try, and oh, how you would love to try, you can’t social engineer behaviors out of society. Remember, the Soviets and the Chinese tried to eliminate religion, and that did about as much good as Prohibition did here in the US.

    This doesn’t mean I endorse that unethical behavior, as you seem so willing to gleefully assume. I’m simply against needless and ineffective punitive punishment, especially when it hurt the innocent child.

    I cannot comprehend the community you describe in which promiscuity equals status for men.

    ???? What ????? Never made that argument either. Again, reading comprehension.

    And who is Pat?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 6, 2011 @ 2:54 pm - October 6, 2011

  94. you can’t social engineer behaviors out of society

    You can’t eliminate bad behavior, but strong moral codes and stigmatization of disapproved behavior can be extremely effective in limiting the damage.

    But I will take this as an admission that civil marriage isn’t going to improve the general behavior or social mores of the gay community.

    Comment by V the K — October 6, 2011 @ 3:55 pm - October 6, 2011

  95. Labeling a woman a slut or whore, or labeling a child a bastard, obviously did nothing to stop the sexual behaviors that resulted in the child being born out of wedlock.

    Actually, given the difference in the number of children being born out of wedlock today compared to what it used to be, it did a hell of a good job in holding down the numbers.

    Is your argument that, because it didn’t stop everything, that it needed to be abolished for everyone? If so, I am more than ready to apply that “exception as rule” process to you based on Dan Savage being gay.

    And this was classic:

    I always thought that Conservatism endorsed giving people an equal chance to succeed in life. Well that is hindered if you are wearing a scarlet letter or derogatory label, given to you by those same Conservatives.

    Excuse me, what were you just complaining about?

    Because there is no punishment of the parents, especially the father.

    You are demanding punishment of the parents at the same time you are whining about and demanding the abolishment of punishment.

    And all you are doing is making pathetic excuses, Sonic. The reason a child is born a bastard is because two adults chose to be irresponsible. The blood is on their hands, the stigma is on their heads. They chose to put a child through this. They engaged in the activity that brought it. And you don’t want to hold them responsible, just as you want to make sure they can treat the child just like an STD.

    You want benefits without responsibility, commitment, or consequences, Sonic. That’s all it is.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2011 @ 4:00 pm - October 6, 2011

  96. And who is Pat?

    Sonicfrog, that would be I. I made a comment in support of your position in 75, as well as wonder if there are really pumpkin pie pop tarts.

    I totally agree with your point about children born out of wedlock. I think part of the morality used to stigmatize such children may be borne from the Bible. Sure, I get the point that it’s the parents who should be punished, but many times, the father, in particular, couldn’t give a shit about his kid, and gets off scot-free. But yet, it’s somehow still okay to label the child a bastart. How nice, right? And your analogy with the NCAA is spot on. That’s the first thing that came to my mind. The coach gets hired by another team making millions while the kids are stuck to deal with the penalty.

    For the record, where I grew up, we looked down on fathers who skipped out on their responsibilities, and not the child. Although, there were probably a few a##holes that felt it was okay to stigmatize the child as well. Perhaps in some communities that is standard procedure.

    Comment by Pat — October 6, 2011 @ 4:02 pm - October 6, 2011

  97. I …wonder if there are really pumpkin pie pop tarts.

    Yes, but they are a seasonal item and sell out quickly. Target and Wegman’s are the only place I have found them.

    where I grew up, we looked down on fathers who skipped out on their responsibilities

    As it should be, but now, especially among lower income groups, fathering a child out of wedlock is a bragging point, and being a single unwed mother is a sign of a strong, independent woman. Thanks, 50 years of liberal social engineering.

    Comment by V the K — October 6, 2011 @ 4:09 pm - October 6, 2011

  98. Actually, given the difference in the number of children being born out of wedlock today compared to what it used to be, it did a hell of a good job in holding down the numbers.

    Is your assertion here, that because we no longer call women sluts and whores, that that is why birth rates are on the rise, especially in minority communities? Quote:

    The historic increases in nonmarital childbearing result from many factors, including substantial delays in marriage beginning with the baby-boom generation and changes in sexual activity, contraceptive effectiveness and use, and abortion (1,2, 10–12). Many infants are also born to couples in cohabiting relationships: According to the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), about 40% of recent nonmarital births were to cohabiting women (10). In addition, there have been attitudinal changes. The societal disapproval that unmarried mothers faced at one time has diminished sharply (13). With the availability of more detailed birth data for 2007 from the vital statistics system and new data from the 2006–2008 NSFG, it will be possible to monitor current trends in the behaviors and attitudes that affect fertility patterns for unmarried women and the health outcomes for their babies.

    Note that labeling women whores and sluts is not listed in the reasons why. Have you ever been in a classroom in the last few years? Guess what, their peers still call each other sluts and whores, and fights break out over it. But, as your statistics show, it doesn’t curb the behavior.

    The reason a child is born a bastard is because two adults chose to be irresponsible. The blood is on their hands, the stigma is on their heads. They chose to put a child through this.

    I can’t put it any plainer to you that to, again, simply point out they don’t care. The only one that suffers is the child, but you’re OK with that.

    Besides that, this doesn’t shed any new or interesting points concerning either Michelle Bachmann, or gay marriage.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 6, 2011 @ 6:00 pm - October 6, 2011

  99. NDT, earlier yousaid this:

    no society has decided to accord equal weight and value to gay-sex relationships as opposed to heterosexual ones, and that is because they were not able to find any reason why it should be equally privileged, encouraged, and benefitted.

    Historically speaking… Quote:

    Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[48] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[49]

    In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[50] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[51]

    An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.[52]

    The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[53] For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus “married” a Carian slave named Hierocles.[54] It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[55] Furthermore, “matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her.”[56] Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of “same-sex unions” during that period is obscure.[57] In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.[58]

    A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on April 16, 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[59]

    Current status?

    In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages.[60] Same-sex marriages are also granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[61] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[62] Iceland (2010) and Argentina (2010). In Mexico same sex marriage is recognized in all 31 states but only performed in Mexico City. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[63] 250 million people (or 4% of the world population) live in areas that recognise same-sex marriage.[64]

    Just though you might want to update your information base.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 6, 2011 @ 6:20 pm - October 6, 2011

  100. I missed this gem.

    I asked of V:

    Do you think NDT is more likely to cheat because he is gay?….Do you think I’m more likely to cheat because I’m gay?

    I got this answer:

    Yes to both.

    Except that wasn’t V answering… That was NDT!

    Sorry man, but just because you lack self control, and feel you can use the cop-out of “Oh, I cheated because I’m gay”, doesn’t mean that I also have the same flaw that you do.

    Sorry to disappoint.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 6, 2011 @ 6:35 pm - October 6, 2011

  101. Note that labeling women whores and sluts is not listed in the reasons why.

    Actually, this would qualify nicely as that.

    The societal disapproval that unmarried mothers faced at one time has diminished sharply (13).

    Which leads us into this.

    I can’t put it any plainer to you that to, again, simply point out they don’t care. The only one that suffers is the child, but you’re OK with that.

    Of course they don’t care. You abolished all the penalties for what they did in the first place. Why should they care? They’re not going to have one bit of consequence for what they did, nor will the child they produce.

    Isn’t that amazing, Sonic? You devalued marriage, eliminated the penalties for straying, and started subsidizing and promoting bastardy, and all of a sudden people started treating marriage like crap, straying more, and producing a whole lot more bastards.

    Why? Because you and your fellow “enlightened” folks didn’t want to be “judged” and thought that all that stuff about commitment, fidelity, responsibility, and the necessity of two parents was just “ancient, bigoted prejudice”.

    Again, do you think that everyone who came before you was an idiot? Does it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, in the tens of thousands of years and innumerable people, cultures, and intellects that came before you, people already experimented with this and found out that it was a bad idea?

    Social liberalism is government by teenagers. Anyone who came before you is a moron who doesn’t understand your needs and is just trying to repress you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2011 @ 6:48 pm - October 6, 2011

  102. Nice try, Sonic, but here’s what I said.

    Yes to both.

    The reason is that the gay and lesbian community and culture is openly hostile toward monogamy, fidelity, and commitment, and rewards promiscuity and irresponsibility.

    You are more likely to cheat, Sonic, because, in the gay and lesbian community, there are no social penalties for it. Indeed, the leadership of the gay and lesbian community like Dan Savage openly promotes infidelity, promiscuity, and non-monogamy. Look at GLAAD, who promotes promiscuous individuals like Joe Jervis. Look at Pam Spaulding, who rants against monogamy and who endorsed and supported serial adulterer John Edwards.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2011 @ 6:50 pm - October 6, 2011

  103. My argument doesn’t hinge on whether any one individual man is more tempted to cheat than another; it’s a question of whether the subculture is generally accepting of promiscuity and infidelity. There are faithful gay men just as there are sober Russians and Frenchmen who smell nice. But I think one has to be in the severest depths of denial to claim sexual promiscuity (and perversity) isn’t widely accepted/tolerated within the gay community.

    Comment by V the K — October 6, 2011 @ 6:51 pm - October 6, 2011

  104. NDT, we are at that really tiresome stage of an argument where the person whose every previous assertion has been refuted just pretends they haven’t been and reasserts them. Tiresome, it is.

    And still no answer to my question from 1:05 PM. I’m going to a football game.

    Comment by V the K — October 6, 2011 @ 6:54 pm - October 6, 2011

  105. My argument doesn’t hinge on whether any one individual man is more tempted to cheat than another; it’s a question of whether the subculture is generally accepting of promiscuity and infidelity. There are faithful gay men just as there are sober Russians and Frenchmen who smell nice. But I think one has to be in the severest depths of denial to claim sexual promiscuity (and perversity) isn’t widely accepted/tolerated within the gay community.

    Who cares what they think.

    On delinquent fathers…

    Of course they don’t care. You abolished all the penalties for what they did in the first place. Why should they care? They’re not going to have one bit of consequence for what they did, nor will the child they produce.

    They didn’t care in the first place.. Which is why bastard children have existed since time immemorial.

    Isn’t that amazing, Sonic? You devalued marriage, eliminated the penalties for straying, and started subsidizing and promoting bastardy, and all of a sudden people started treating marriage like crap, straying more, and producing a whole lot more bastards.

    When exactly did “I” do that? This is quickly devolving into the theatre of the absurd.

    Why? Because you and your fellow “enlightened” folks didn’t want to be “judged” and thought that all that stuff about commitment, fidelity, responsibility, and the necessity of two parents was just “ancient, bigoted prejudice”.

    You’re at war with the wrong person.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 6, 2011 @ 7:28 pm - October 6, 2011

  106. V, I’ll answer yours if you finally answer mine, which was asked first.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 6, 2011 @ 9:10 pm - October 6, 2011

  107. TO SF

    Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do. – Apple Inc.

    Comment by rusty — October 6, 2011 @ 10:29 pm - October 6, 2011

  108. I have to agree with NDT. It’s human nature that you are more likely to do something wrong if you think you will get away with it, if you perceive there is no risk, no penalty. That applies to you, me, NDT… anyone.

    Comment by V the K — October 6, 2011 @ 11:32 pm - October 6, 2011

  109. I don’t disagree with that statement at all. But punishing the child for a discretion he / she did not commit is simply not an effective way to punish the parents, especially when the father is long gone and tapping the next piece that makes herself available.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 6, 2011 @ 11:36 pm - October 6, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.