As a single parent, I realize my family arrangement is not equal to a family arrangement led by a committed mom and dad. I can accept that because I’m not a whining little sissy boy when needs the Government to make-believe it is for me.

Comment by V the K — February 10, 2012 @ 11:02 am – February 10, 2012

Bingo, V.

I think you are a great parent.

But I think you would be the first to acknowledge that your being a parent is the result of two other people failing to be, and ultimately how much better it would have been for them had your sons actually been able to be raised by the people who brought them into the world.

You have the ability to acknowledge that your answer is not the best solution to the problem and that your situation is not the ideal. It’s a stopgap, made necessary by two other peoples’ failure to live up to their commitments and their responsibility.

The problem that we’re dealing with is that Pat, Sonicfrog, and others cannot recognize that. In their world, acknowledging that their relationships are different and have different impacts is tatamount to failure. Hence their insistence on the Manichean duality that marriage can never have anything to do with children and procreation because not all heterosexual couples are able to procreate.

What I find endlessly hilarious is how the animal behaviorists, in attempting to rationalize homosexuality, insist that allowing “uncle” and “aunt” relationships in the animal kingdom increases survivability. Of course it does; but those relationships center on supporting and helping the existing heterosexual relationships that produce offspring, rather than demanding that those relationships that don’t produce receive “equal treatment”.

just wanted to point out a post back on 1/23/12 by BDB:

he stated: The masks that we put on others. To our commenters, think about that before you reply to someone who offers an opinion different from your own. Don’t make assumptions about who they are. You may be surprised how much you have in common.

although there was only one comment from Lori. . .her response was great.

if you have a moment, I encourage you to read Lori’s comment.

I think there are some who want government recognition not for the benefits, but for reason 1. I don’t assign percentages to benefits.

@NDT, don’t drink and blockquote.

Please learn to read for comprehension, and the divorce rate is not 50%.Not even close

Comment by sonicfrog — February 9, 2012 @ 8:29 pm – February 9, 2012

Oh, so all those gay and lesbian commenters and community leaders who cite both Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian, as well as the divorce rate, as reasons for why opposition to gay marriage is wrong are themselves…..wrong?

Meanwhile, Sonic, the reason I am so supportive of heterosexual marriage is because of all the people I know around me, friends and family, who are. The rules are very simple.

1) Marry only if you’re planning to spend the rest of your life with this person

2) Given 1), it behooves you to think about your choice BEFORE you marry

3) Realize that 1) means what it says — so refer again to 2).

Why? Because divorce and remarriage f*ck up and with children. The only thing that is preferable to is outright abuse.

Furthermore, “conflict” or “incompatibility” are NOT abuse. They are things you figure out in the dating and pre-marital counseling process. If you choose to go into the marriage anyway, the only way you’re going to get out is if one or both of you is willing to admit that you are a total f*ckup in a court of law.

I’m sure Ronald Reagan didn’t want to do that, but the facts were the facts. He and Jane Wyman f*cked up, and he chose the wrong out.

Gay relationships? Ha. Nowhere near the societal impact. If you and your partner break up, nowhere near the impact would take place as it does when two parents with kids break a family apart.

This is the fundamental reason why heterosexuals are treated differently. And it’s a damn good one. You would have far more credibility on requesting legal recognition of gay and lesbian ones if you were actually championing and acknowledging the value of heterosexual ones.

For those on the other side, they can’t really be that straightforward; at the end of the day, for them, it’s really about getting benefits and status. But since that sounds as selfish as it actually is, they have to come up with all these convoluted rationales that end up contradicting each other.

As a single parent, I realize my family arrangement is not equal to a family arrangement led by a committed mom and dad. I can accept that because I’m not a whining little sissy boy when needs the Government to make-believe it is for me.

You say this:

I don’t support or oppose positions based on my self-esteem. Just as I would assume that straight married couples aren’t supporting the government recognition on their marriage based solely on their self-esteem.

Comment by Pat — February 10, 2012 @ 10:01 am – February 10, 2012

But earlier, you tried this argument.

Or are you saying that you would be okay with the state (somehow) stripping the official recognition of your marriage, while leaving everyone else’s intact. Note: I am not saying that you wouldn’t value your marriage any less, but I suspect that you would fight to have the official recognition restored.

Comment by Pat — February 10, 2012 @ 9:50 am – February 10, 2012

You claim your argument is not based on self-esteem, but then try to argue using self-esteem.

But the real motivation is right here.

If we believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality (except, of course, when, like anything else, is acted on irresponsibly), we shouldn’t discourage the positive things that are afforded to heterosexuals.

It’s all about demanding benefits, isn’t it?

You don’t have any concept of WHY society gives these things to heterosexual relationships. All you see is that someone else is getting something you’re not, and like a bratty teenage girl, you start bawling and screaming that you’re being made to feel “inferior”, and that Mommy and Daddy are mean because they won’t buy you the BMW that someone else is driving.

Grow up.

Nobody cares that you choose to have sex with the same gender. Nobody particularly cares that you enter into whatever legal arrangements are needed with it. But don’t delude yourself into thinking that your choice warrants the same level of public trust, support, and subsidy that is given to the very relationship that made your existence possible in the first place.

Heterosexuals are treated differently because their activities have the greatest impact on the most helpless humans on the planet — babies and children. It is strongly in society’s interest to encourage, support, and yes FORCE, heterosexuals to do the right thing for the children their activities produce.

You do everything in your power to avoid that basic fact. You and yours blather on endlessly about childless and infertile heterosexuals and insist that these exceptions mean that you should be able to cash in. You whine and complain about Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian. But all that shows is that you don’t even understand or conceptualize the basic reason that marriage exists in the first place. You just want fatter welfare checks and a piece of paper from the government to force people to like you more.

You’re a moocher, Pat. Period. You see the toys the other kids have and you demand them. But you won’t think about even the basic reasons for WHY and HOW, and come up with all sorts of elaborate rationalizations.

Grow. Up.

You say this:

I don’t support or oppose positions based on my self-esteem. Just as I would assume that straight married couples aren’t supporting the government recognition on their marriage based solely on their self-esteem.

Comment by Pat — February 10, 2012 @ 10:01 am – February 10, 2012

But earlier, you tried this argument.

Or are you saying that you would be okay with the state (somehow) stripping the official recognition of your marriage, while leaving everyone else’s intact. Note: I am not saying that you wouldn’t value your marriage any less, but I suspect that you would fight to have the official recognition restored.

Comment by Pat — February 10, 2012 @ 9:50 am – February 10, 2012

You claim your argument is not based on self-esteem, but then try to argue using self-esteem.

But the real motivation is right here.

If we believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality (except, of course, when, like anything else, is acted on irresponsibly), we shouldn’t discourage the positive things that are afforded to heterosexuals.

It’s all about demanding benefits, isn’t it?

You don’t have any concept of WHY society gives these things to heterosexual relationships. All you see is that someone else is getting something you’re not, and like a bratty teenage girl, you start bawling and screaming that you’re being made to feel “inferior”, and that Mommy and Daddy are mean because they won’t buy you the BMW that someone else is driving.

Grow up.

Nobody cares that you choose to have sex with the same gender. Nobody particularly cares that you enter into whatever legal arrangements are needed with it. But don’t delude yourself into thinking that your choice warrants the same level of public trust, support, and subsidy that is given to the very relationship that made your existence possible in the first place.

Heterosexuals are treated differently because their activities have the greatest impact on the most helpless humans on the planet — babies and children. It is strongly in society’s interest to encourage, support, and yes FORCE, heterosexuals to do the right thing for the children their activities produce.

You do everything in your power to avoid that basic fact. You and yours blather on endlessly about childless and infertile heterosexuals and insist that these exceptions mean that you should be able to cash in. You whine and complain about Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian. But all that shows is that you don’t even understand or conceptualize the basic reason that marriage exists in the first place. You just want fatter welfare checks and a piece of paper from the government to force people to like you more.

You’re a moocher, Pat. Period. You see the toys the other kids have and you demand them. But you won’t think about even the basic reasons for WHY and HOW, and come up with all sorts of elaborate rationalizations.

Grow. Up.

V the K, I assume you are addressing me. Thankfully, my self-esteem is not dependent on government recognition. However, my self-esteem is not dependent on the status quo either. I don’t support or oppose positions based on my self-esteem. Just as I would assume that straight married couples aren’t supporting the government recognition on their marriage based solely on their self-esteem.

As to whether my relationship is “equal” to anyone else’s, technically speaking it is not. Obviously every relationship is different, etc. Some are better than others, some worse. However, because my self-esteem is pretty good, then yes, I do view my relationship on par with other committed couples, straight or gay.

Heliotrope, I believe it’s for the married couple and other people. Don’t you?

Rock and roll! Gays can get “married” in a church or bed and breakfast garden and play all the roles and mothers can weep and a good time will be had by all. Rings can be exchanged, cakes cut, toasts made and everybody will be impressed and go home with warm fuzzy feelings.

Who is preventing that? Nobody.

I agree that nobody is preventing that. But then reality hits. For example, when you got married, did you have all that minus the official state recognition. Something tells me if you did, it wasn’t all warm and fuzzy. Or are you saying that you would be okay with the state (somehow) stripping the official recognition of your marriage, while leaving everyone else’s intact. Note: I am not saying that you wouldn’t value your marriage any less, but I suspect that you would fight to have the official recognition restored. If I’m wrong, I’ll stand corrected.

Livewire, I agree with much of what you are saying. Although I prefer marriage, like you I much prefer the legislative route. I want to address the four groups that you mentioned.

1) I almost fall into this group. I do think my relationship deserves the same recognition as others. Maybe it’s selfish, but heck, that’s what Bill and Sue wanted, so maybe we’re all selfish. In any case, I’ll be fine with the same recognition or not.

2) Not in this group at all. In our case, I don’t believe we would benefit financially from it. In fact, NJ recognizes the civil union, but we were denied an extra tax refund because our incomes are included together.

3) Definitely not a part of this group.

4) Not this one either. Obviously, handing one a government system is not going to make someone that thinks your homosexuality is evil like you. But I do maintain that this does help people recognize others’ marriage, when it otherwise wouldn’t. Even today, warm and fuzzy weddings without government recognition don’t cut it for most people.

As for Venn diagrams, with three categories it’s very doable. With four it’s rather difficult.

Rusty, thanks. I’ve been quite busy too often to post. But I have checked in from time to time and witnessed some of the interesting developments over the past couple of months.

I thought about posting a long rant about how my daddy loves me even with my spelling difficulties and how all you mean people with spell checkers have parents who want you to hang themselves. Too soon?

Seriously, I know I have issues with spelling. If I could install a IE spell check (or another browser) on here I would.

My mom and her (now) ex-partner actually did that. Ceremony was funky to me, no invitation of G_d to bless their union for example.

I think you hit on a point though. There are (at least) three viewpoints of the pro SSM idea.

1) I want the government regcognition to give my relationship the same official legitimacy that Bill and Sue have.
2) I want the federal benefits that come with marriage. Gimme gimme gimme!
3) Frak society, I want to tear the patriarchal institution down, making marriage just a word will do that!

I’m sure someone could draw some amusing ven diagrams from that.

Oh I forgot there’s the 4th group that thinks that getting that cert will suddenly magically make everyone like and accept them. But I promised myself I’d not mention little fruit anymore.

Maybe I’m the odd man out (duh!) but I don’t see the goal a decline, but I see the means as the decline. But I admit I have biases

It would be foolish to ignore that same sex couples exist. From the legends of the Theban Speckeled Band to John Barrowman and his partner, it’s clear they’ve existed. The question (in a republic) is what do we do with them?

I’ve said before I prefer ‘Fred’ as an answer. California has (effectively) Fred, even after Prop-8 passed. CT and WA now have SSM. I disagree with the results in WA and CT (preferring Fred) but agree with the method. That’s why I’m citizen Livewire and not Emperor Livewire. Now were I a WA resident and someone was circulating a petition to recall the governour over SSM, I’d not sign it. Were they circulating a petition to amend the constitution I’d sign it if it ‘defined marriage as between a man and a woman’ but left room for Fred as that’s my goal. If it was Ohio’s DOMA? On reflection I’d vote against it. The people have recourse (elections) to ‘fix’ the SSM legislation that yanking it entirely would be overkill. (of course now the 9th circus says that states can’t change their laws, but that’s another complaint).

My issue is the means, regardless of the end. Ohio’s DOMA was passed in reaction to MA. We (yes, I voted for it) took steps to make sure that our courts couldn’t pull a rabbit out of a hat and *presto* invent SSM. Now, even when I voted for it, I said if someone wants to start a petition drive to have it removed, I’d sign it. If that passed, it would show the people of the state of Ohio decided it’s time to address the issue in a mature way.

Courts inventing penumbras, like Presidents making exceptiosn to laws that don’t exist, move us away from a republic and to a tyrany. Agree or disagree with a federal DOMA, it’s the correct way to address an issue in the constitution, especially in the light of the 9th’s decision. (Really to be technical from a small government POV, the Feds should stay the heck out of Marriage, except for FFC issues, but that’s an ugly long slog of cutting Leviathan back, so I’m not going to get into that here.)