Pajamas Media

86 Comments

jeff:

“Who needs more normal people in this world? Normal people walk through Safeway with their lattes and sunglasses on their heads comparing feminine hygiene products and watch the Hallmark channel.”

Who at PJM decided to start publishing someone who’d write this?

Jul 3, 2008 - 1:51 am DoktorNo:

jeff:

I don’t know.

At the first glance, I thought, that this piece is a satire. But on the other hand, it looks genue.

Jul 3, 2008 - 4:02 am Radtop:

If the majority of Americans believe that marriage is a religious institution, then gays should get over it and go for civil unions. My wife and I are somewhat offended by the fact that gays don’t consider civil unions, which we have, good enough. Also some gays intentionally make a mockery of marriage to purposely rub heterosexuals noses in the fact that gays are more equal.

Jul 3, 2008 - 4:45 am Sean:

“the Constitution grants Americans freedom of religion, and also freedom from religion.”

The Constitution explicitly says freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. If the author can’t even get that part right, how am I expected to trust anything else he says?

Regardless, the argument should be about making all of the benefits of marriage simple contracts with no “limit.” I choose who gets my inheritance, who gets medical benefits, who can visit me in the hospital, etc. The only reason for homosexual marriage is to destroy the institution of marriage itself. Marriage, despite the authors argument, was and still is about family and breeding. If a couple cannot theoretically, biologically reproduce, there is no reason to marry. Everything else are simply contracts, nothing more, nothing less.

Jul 3, 2008 - 5:19 am Joshua:

Our culture is one which disdains promiscuity and promotes monogamy, even when it’s serial monogamy.

I’m still waiting for the punchline to that joke.

Jul 3, 2008 - 5:27 am David WL:

Marriage is the fundamental human social structure that spontaneously emerged for one reason, and one reason alone: the procreation and nurture of children. Period.

All sexual activity outside of that structure is immoral. Period.

While I agree that a heterosexual couple that intentionally remains sterile is acting immorally, it is fundamentally different from a homosexual couple: the former is recognizing the means (heterosexual marriage) while refusing to allow that means to reach its proper and natural end (”natural” here is used in the sense of what is proper to man’s intrinsic end, not “biological”). The latter is violating both means and end.

Put another way: homosexual marriage is not marriage at all: it violates the goal (proper end) of what marriage is. Marriage is not about companionship, not about sexual pleasure, not about fulfillment, not about “happiness”. It is about the procreation and nurture of children.

I do implicitly agree with Ms. VanEaton on one point: our society has so completely lost sight of this moral truth that gay marriage only seems the consistent unpacking of what many, perhaps most, people think marriage is.

At this point, the only solution for morally serious people may be the disestablishment of marriage: jettison the legal and tax benefits of marriage, make marriage something that is done within religious communities representing their moral convictions, and leave the serial monogamists, gays, etc. to the “benefits” of so-called legal companionships (or whatever the courts decide to call it).

Jul 3, 2008 - 5:51 am tehag:

“At the first glance, I thought, that this piece is a satire. But on the other hand, it looks genue.”

If you don’t believe that homosexuals are loving, caring people who can teach us all about the beauty of human sexual relationships and you don’t believe that homophobes (who mistakenly describe themselves as orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims or as humanists or “decent” people) are full of the fulminating, vicious, irrational hatreds, then PJM is not for you. Go elsewhere!

If you believe the state shouldn’t interfere in the loving sexual and marriage relationships between people regardless of age or skin color or number or genitalia or child-bearing capability, then PJM is not for you! Go elsewhere!

Jul 3, 2008 - 5:53 am Alan:

In Canada they allowed civil unions and the issue simply went away. According to popular belief “gay marriage” is legal in Canada. It isn’t. We need to just get over it and introduce same-sex civil unions in the US.

Jul 3, 2008 - 6:05 am wj:

Homosexuals have the same right to marry right now as anyone else in the US. What they are asking for are special rights to “marry” someone of the same gender.

If we as a country ever go down the path of same sex “marriage”, it should be done via the legislatures, and not imposed on us via the judicial oligarchy (especially split decisions).

Jul 3, 2008 - 6:07 am WR Jonas:

Amid all of this opinion is the fact that man was the source of womans creation. And by Gods power she was created .
Within man is the incredible attraction to woman. God has a specific purpose in that foundation and it is the creation of the family. Sexual reproduction is the means by which Gods plan is carried out.
God never endowed a right on man to have sex. Those who insist sex is a right regardless of the gender of the partner are perverting Gods intention.
To equate homosexual union as equivalent to Gods intended purpose is a lie and the work of he who lies.

Jul 3, 2008 - 6:14 am Queen of the Qwerty:

“Marriage is about family and breeding?” or, “the fundamental human social structure that spontaneously emerged for one reason, and one reason alone: the procreation and nurture of children?”. Actually, marriage was originally ‘about’ tax laws. But thanks, comments box folk, for reminding me exactly why I had to leave America! Folk like Jamie VanEaton, however, could (almost)convince me to come back. A very refreshing piece indeed!

Jul 3, 2008 - 6:53 am Lynn:

Marriage is between one man (groom) and one woman (bride). A bride (woman) and groom (man) join together in marriage and become husband (man) and wife (woman). There is no other relationship the same and it should not be redefined. It should be left alone.

Jul 3, 2008 - 7:22 am Ellen K.:

Gay Marriage is a perfectly obvious extension of basic human rights. Those who oppose it should look inside themselves and ask why it disturbs them so much.

Jul 3, 2008 - 7:58 am Amphipolis:

There is a huge difference between a diverse heterosexual couple and a unisex couple.

Men and women are different. Mothers and fathers are different. Therefore diverse couples and same-sex couples are inherently different.

You assume these couples are equivalent - I say you are comparing apples to oranges.

Marriage is not for the purpose of procreation, but it is structured to provide both a mother and a father to the children that even today typically come from marriage. Fertility is a serious issue for heterosexual couples, even those who do not, can not, or don’t want to have children. All heterosexual couples deal with it in one way or the other. And fertility is just one issue - there are others.

Heterosexual couples are inherently, significantly, and obviously different from single-sex couples.

Jul 3, 2008 - 8:03 am Amphipolis:

In these discussions parenthood is dumbed down to procreation. Parenting does not end at “breeding,” it begins there. Might the diversity of marriage have something to do with parenting?

Just don’t mention motherhood and fatherhood. Two fathers or two mothers are just as good.

Not.

Jul 3, 2008 - 8:27 am Sean:

“Actually, marriage was originally ‘about’ tax laws.”
Maybe you’re right for government interference in marriage. Unfortunately for you, marriage is NOT a governmental construct. Marriage existed before government and will continue to exist after.

Jul 3, 2008 - 8:28 am Xanthippe:

My kids go to school with kids who have parents with same-sex partners. They also go to school with kids of single parents, kids in nuclear families, and kids with never-married parents.

As an American society, we ought to promote committed, stable relationships between two adults, particularly when there are children involved.

If the word “marriage” bothers people, then how about if the government gets out of the marriage business entirely? Leave it to the religious organizations.

If a marriage license is the same thing as a civil union license, then government ought to issue them to gay couples as well. If not, then government ought to only issue civil union licenses.

Jul 3, 2008 - 8:55 am MaE:

Every man in this country has the right to marry any woman regardless of race, class, religion, etc and vice versa. That’s equality.

Jul 3, 2008 - 9:03 am Amphipolis:

If it were true that marriage is fully religious in nature, atheists would be refused the right to wed. And yet, even the godless marry. Why? Because, protected under the Bill of Rights, and, as a country, the Constitution grants Americans freedom of religion, and also freedom from religion.

No - because, contrary to your crazy misrepresentation of religion, nobody cares if heterosexual atheists marry. God bless ‘em.

Jul 3, 2008 - 9:03 am Dan:

I’m not exactly sure how to respond, but I feel like I have to. Now, I’m from San Francisco - born and raised; and in my eighteen years, I’ve accepted homosexuality as a normal part of my day-to-day dealings.

That said, marriage is a governmental contract. A state should be allowed to set its own definition of the contract, its terms, and, yes, its conditions.

The assumption in heterosexual marriage is that you’re probably going to have children. After all, you’re intentionally pairing people who have two very necessary components of procreation. Why shouldn’t the government create a contract that fosters the growth of its society? That’s common sense. It’s not the goverment’s job to pat Ricky and Raul on the back and say, “Hey, fantastic work, gentlemen - and congratulations.” It exists to create policies that encourage society’s, you know, continued existence…and from what I hear in history class, that’s pretty important.

Jul 3, 2008 - 9:23 am view from afar:

THANK YOU WR JONAS FOR THE BEST EXPLANATION ON WHY ITS WRONG!
Sorry, I just don’t think same sex marriages are necessary. There can be other arrangements, but marriage is marriage, and it has always been defined as happening between a man and a woman…
As for that, here’s another thought, I have never been able to figure out, why don’t the Butch girls go for the girly guys?

Jul 3, 2008 - 9:27 am Amphipolis:

Initially, these human rights didn’t extend to Africans, and certainly not to women or Native Americans.
Which rights? You don’t say. Are you saying that in the early days of the republic women had no more rights than slaves?

Our culture is one which disdains promiscuity and promotes monogamy, even when it’s serial monogamy. At the same time, these same people who berate promiscuity
Our culture - these same people. Which is it?

don’t allow for the rewards of monogamy for the gay folks
What rewards are exclusive to marriage? You don’t say.

creating the self-fulfilling prophecy of unsafe sexual trysts rather than proud weddings and long-term relationships
And now we have the scape goat for gay unsafe sex. I suppose teens could claim the same excuse.

This is due, in large part, to the common notion that marriage is both for religious reasons and for procreation.
Not due to the fact that the one is multi-sex and the other is single sex. OK, right.

Jul 3, 2008 - 9:57 am Wacky Hermit:

Those danged “normal” people and their freaky quotidian ways!!! Why can’t they reject Wal-Mart, Costco, Denny’s, and all those other evil capitalist institutions like the rest of us?!?!

Jul 3, 2008 - 10:20 am Wm Bennington:

Whoa, hold on! This conversation should really be about altering the nature of civil rights. I’m talking about slippery slopes. “Here we go again. Do we have to go THERE? - Yes.” Activists want to alter our notions of rights, but only to the point where a certain self-identified group in included as having rights in certain self-proscribed ways. This is all premised on vague notions of “progress” - that everyone who has felt aggrieved will eventually see that grievance redressed. The cheap way of getting at this is to redefine fundamental rights. Blacks got the vote, now gays get marriage! Unfortunately for gays, voting is a right; however, marriage is a cultural institution with, as another respondent suggested, tax breaks and certain legal consequences. Conceivably, Americans could either decide that they want to culturally change the institutional of marriage or offer wider access to “civil unions.” But turning this into a “right” implies the same privilege for every self-identified group based on behavior, identification and/or some physiological or psychologial state.

Ultimately, the move to demand “gay marriage” is like compelling the teacher to make the cool kids play with you at recess bacause its fair. You want “in” because you don’t like being “out.” Instead, take your ball and start your own game. Who knows, maybe the cool kids will get jealous.

Jul 3, 2008 - 10:35 am Amphipolis:

It’s not a slippery slope in the sense that the next step is inevitable. No, the next step is not inevitable - but the rationale for this step, once accepted, would apply PERFECTLY to the next step.

If the rationale for gay marriage would also logically apply to polygamy, there is either a problem with the rationale or no problem with polygamy.

And today, in 2008, we have grown, intelligent, loving people who aren’t allowed to marry because their partner is already married. The horror.

Jul 3, 2008 - 10:55 am surf66:

what a tedious barrage of unnecessary crap. This, then, is the state of Journalism: social sh*t. I can get the same from a Liberal Arts College newspaper. Get off my screen.

Jul 3, 2008 - 11:58 am Amphipolis:

The jabs at heterosexual marriage definitely add to the aura of the piece. Serial monogamy, how much sex is there after the honeymoon, etc.

Jul 3, 2008 - 12:27 pm DCGamer:

Marriage is the fundamental human social structure that spontaneously emerged for one reason, and one reason alone: the procreation and nurture of children. Period.

All sexual activity outside of that structure is immoral. Period.

David WL

You are wrong, David. The institution of marriage was created as a property arrangement. A woman and the dowry offered by her family was transferred to a man from another family. Obviously slaves and poor freemen didn’t have property to worry about, so they simply “shacked up.”

All sexual activity outside of that structure is immoral. Period.

Wrong again. Men in most cultures had concubines or even male lovers. The women, of course, did not have this opportunity. They were, of course, the property of their husband.

The early Christian Church did not involve itself with marriage. It was a Roman institution left to the government. They were more concerned about the imminent return of Christ. Later the Church did get involved and even made it a sacrament, but that came later.

The fact is, marriage has changed over the centuries, and it has survived every change thus far. It was only 40 years ago in this country where mixed race couples could not marry in many states. Would you have been one of the racists arguing that God is against mixed-race marriages at that time?

Many of you are so very concerned that gay marriage will destroy the institution. You need not fear gays. Straight people are doing their best to destory the institution all on their own. (e.g. 50%+ divorce rate). If you are against gay marriage, then don’t have one.

Jul 3, 2008 - 12:56 pm Gary47590:

RADTOP - if you are a man, then you are confused at best, or flat out lying. You do not have a civil union. Civil Unions are only available to same sex couples in select states.

Jul 3, 2008 - 1:02 pm Heather:

Even if “gay marriage” is recognized by all states, unmarried people will still be second-class citizens with fewer legal rights and treated unequally under the law.

Disgusting.

Jul 3, 2008 - 2:34 pm Paul:

What a steaming pile of waste. Gay Marriage = Oxy Moron.

Jul 3, 2008 - 2:47 pm Charlie (Colorado):

Marriage is the fundamental human social structure that spontaneously emerged for one reason, and one reason alone: the procreation and nurture of children. Period.

Uh, David? how are you going to explain, for example, cultures that don’t have marriage? Like the Na people of Unnan?

Jul 3, 2008 - 2:57 pm Charlie (Colorado):

Homosexuals have the same right to marry right now as anyone else in the US.

Yeah, and a few years ago whites and blacks had the same right to marriage as anyone else: just not each other.

Jul 3, 2008 - 2:58 pm newyorkdude:

Charlie asks one of the burning questions in Colorado:

how are you going to explain, for example, cultures that don’t have marriage? Like the Na people of Unnan?

It’s a no-no for non-Nas to speak for Nas. The only proper thing to do is wait for a Na poster to come onto this board and ’splain. Pending that visit, perhaps Charlie can point us to a Na website where Na spokespeople clue us into the benefits of their way of life. Now I’m curious about how Nas deal with homosexuality in their cultural institutions. How do Nas handle the gay thing?

No fair cheating. Only Nas allowed to answer.

Jul 3, 2008 - 7:15 pm Bullfrog:

WOW. Where to begin? Some have already said it all, so I will speak as a heterosexual Christian man who is married and has 2 children.

Marriage is not a “right” as some would like us to believe, but an institution created by God so that “2 would become one flesh” and “go forth, be fruitful, and populate the earth”. If men and women didn’t have committed, monogamous relationships and procreate, not a single person on either side of this issue would exist. Plain and simple. Yes, the government has since gotten involved and added tax breaks, estate laws, etc to the mix. Why? Because even the government acknowledges the fundamental truth that the nuclear family has, and always will be, he foundation of ANY society, and they want to encourage heterosexuals to marry and have children.

I live in California where same-sex couple have the right to civil union; they can share a name, an estate, share tax benefits, etc. If this were purely a legal matter, or a matter of homosexuals wanting to “express their love”, they can already do that. The plain fact is, they just want to redefine marriage because it fits their political agenda.

As for this article: simply drivel.

Jul 3, 2008 - 8:01 pm Yaakov Watkins:

Charlie, the fact that you have to point to an obscure culture in an obscure country to make your point actually invalidates your evidence.

Even since the word was invented, marriage has referred to a relationship between at least one man and at least one woman. Even during the famed Greek period when so many men were gay, they apparently didn’t marry each other.

Gays have a history of trying to manipulate the English language to change political reality. Years ago, they invented the word “homophobic” to “prove” that people who disapproved of homosexuality actually “felt that their sexuality was threatened” by gays, and thus were afraid of gays.

I am not afraid of gays. I do not feel threatened, I just believe that homosexual activity is a perversion of heterosexual activity. Bestiality is a perversion of heterosexual activity. Masturbation is a perversion of heterosexual activity. I do not advocate violence or a denial of civil rights. I attempt to be polite and civil around everyone. It is clear that gays feel threatened by people like me.

Some gay supporters want to define my views as hate speech and censor me. It won’t work.

Civil Unions were defeated in Colorado in part because the gay community opposed them. They want the societal approval that goes with the term “marriage.” I don’t think that they are going to get the approval that they crave.

I have no doubt that the response to this posting will be people calling me names rather than people discussing the issue in a civil manner.

Jul 3, 2008 - 8:42 pm Kimberly:

“Also some gays intentionally make a mockery of marriage to purposely rub heterosexuals noses in the fact that gays are more equal”

Sooooo many things wrong with this statement.

First of all, “gays intentionally make a mockery of marriage”? How so? Because they just want the same rights the rest of us enjoy and abuse? I’ll never understand how so many of the same people that argue so vehemently that marriage is a religious institution are the same people that have been divorced. I’m fairly certain that marriage vows are meant to be “till death do us part”. But no one says anything about that. If you’ve been divorced, then shut up about gay marriage being against God’s plan. Good grief. I sure hope God loves hypocrites.

Secondly… “to rub heterosexuals noses in…” Oh yeah. I’m sure that’s the plot of the homesexuals everywhere. To rub our noses in their relationships. Narcissistic much?

And lastly… “the fact that gays are more equal”? Uhmm how can anything be “more” equal. Things are either equal or they are not. That’s like saying something is “more unique”. It’s unique, or it’s not. Geez.

Nothing like an article on Gay Marriage to flush out the Holier than thou. What ever happened to “live and let live”? Why do ANY of you care enough to post in opposition to gay marriage? Oh, and I’m tired of the “God intended marriage for procreation” argument. I guess the people that God created STERILE are just out of luck, eh?

Jul 3, 2008 - 11:07 pm Javelin:

Nice to see all the deep thinkers here share their profundities. I can live with Gay Marriage, though I wish it wasn’t an issue, if it would be decided by the legislatures not the courts.
No matter what some mental midgets here have to say, the marriages we are talking about are legal contracts that have nothing to do with religion. I am sick of these types that have to shove their Christianity into our faces then cry like the babies they are when someone tells them to cram it. Go crawl back into your caves, put on your martyr crowns and then lie about how you are being treated worse than blacks and Jews. Boo hoo!

Jul 3, 2008 - 11:47 pm David WL:

This is the 3rd time I’ve tried posting it, since it applies to things that have been said more recently, I’ll try again:
To DCGamer:
The institution of marriage was created as a property arrangement. A woman and the dowry offered by her family was transferred to a man from another family.
Irrelevant to the argument. The point of the institution was what I said it was: a socially recognized way to have and raise children. The fact that for much of history the woman was seen as a property doesn’t change that fact.

Obviously slaves and poor freemen didn’t have property to worry about, so they simply “shacked up.”
You are confusing the social construct of the physical and moral unity of a man and woman for procreation/nurture with a ceremony. I’m not talking about a wedding, I’m talking about marriage.

There’s plenty of evidence from comparative religion that marriage (the institution, not the ceremony) exists in most great cultures:

You can read the classical guidelines for Hindu marriage in the Laws of Manu ch. 3 (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/india/manu-full.html ) Odd: if marriage didn’t matter, then why all the rules?

Buddhism, in the Dhammikasutta, v. 21 (?) says: “Let the wise man [a non-monk] avoid an unchaste life as a burning heap of coals. If he is not able to live a life of chastity, let him not transgress with another man’s wife.” Commitment to a single sexual partner is the only licit way for a man to engage in sexual relations (non-westernized Buddhism prohibits homosexual relations); if a young man can’t manage that, at a minimum a man should not have relations with a woman married to another man.

Men in most cultures had concubines or even male lovers.
And both were distinguished from the necessary and unique institution of marriage. Men got married to have legitimate children. (There was a Roman maxim I’m quoting from memory: “we have wives for children, prostitutes for pleasure, and concubines for necessity.”)

The early Christian Church did not involve itself with marriage. It was a Roman institution left to the government.
The New Testament says in Hebrews 13:4 (circa 60-70 CE): “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” Christianity viewed sexuality proper within marriage, and improper outside of it. Once again, you are confusing an institution with a ceremony.

Marriage is not (contra “Javelin”) a purely legal ceremony. It is an institution found in all major cultures, rooted in the fundamental needs of human experience and flourishing.

Jul 4, 2008 - 6:41 am Xanthippe:

If religious people want to object to the religious institution of marriage between homosexuals, that is a matter left between them and their church.

However, the governmental institution of marriage, with state-issued licenses, should be left to the people without regard for what constitutes religious marriage.

The government should get out of the marriage business completely. Make them all civil unions.

But if governmental marriage is nothing more nor less than a civil union, then homosexuals ought to have the right to marry.

What I don’t understand - for religious people - is how gay marriage will hurt our society. It seems to me that prohibiting gay marriage will not prohibit gay relationships. Shouldn’t we as a society do whatever we can to promote stable, committed relationships?

Jul 4, 2008 - 8:48 am Amphipolis:

The institution of marriage was created as a property arrangement.

You mean an inheritance arrangement. It was often concluded, by the nobility, to consolidate lands - for succeeding generations.

You, and most modern gay propaganda, conveniently forget the fertility assumptions that were always behind these arrangements. It there was no expectation of children, there would have been no agreement.

so they simply “shacked up.”

And thereafter considered each other husband and wife.

Interesting how they put down the institution while ostensibly trying to join it.

Jul 4, 2008 - 10:00 am Matt S.:

Bullfrog: I’m a Christian heterosexual father of three. I’d like to thank Jamie VanEaton for the article. PJM needs diversity of thought. I have friends who are gay and financially struggling with twin babies, having to accept welfare because the one who has a good stable income working in the Federal government cannot adopt the twins under the present lack of spousal support for same sex couples at the federal level. She also pays higher taxes by far. It’s just plain not fair to her, her spouse or their children and as a Christian, let alone a simple man seeing two women struggling to make ends meet and provide care for their family, I must support their efforts to do what is right for their family and seek equal rights before the law and inability to get benefits for their kids. We have to recognize who is being hurt here.

Jul 4, 2008 - 10:04 am Schala:

“If the majority of Americans believe that marriage is a religious institution, then gays should get over it and go for civil unions. My wife and I are somewhat offended by the fact that gays don’t consider civil unions, which we have, good enough. Also some gays intentionally make a mockery of marriage to purposely rub heterosexuals noses in the fact that gays are more equal.”

1st: Civil unions are subject to change under courts, rights and privileges associated with civil unions can be withdrawn easily. For marriage not so. It’s also clear that civil unions don’t carry the over 1000 benefits that marriage do.

2nd: It’s not about you. If you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t get one - simple.

“The Constitution explicitly says freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. If the author can’t even get that part right, how am I expected to trust anything else he says?”

Freedom of having any religion, including none, including three at the same time, too. Freedom of picking any number, including zero. Basically, the state should not put it’s nose in religious affairs or have favoritism over one religion or another.

“Marriage, despite the authors argument, was and still is about family and breeding. If a couple cannot theoretically, biologically reproduce, there is no reason to marry. Everything else are simply contracts, nothing more, nothing less.”

Maybe it’s that way religiously, sure. Let only straight couples have ceremonies in churches if your chuch is that way. But you can’t ban the contract part. This part has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with legalities.

“In Canada they allowed civil unions and the issue simply went away. According to popular belief “gay marriage” is legal in Canada. It isn’t. We need to just get over it and introduce same-sex civil unions in the US.”

Yes it is legal. And you know what, the institution of marriage didn’t burn down and Canada is having continuous yearly surplus unlike the US having 500 billion a year deficits.

By the way, I’m straight, and female, and would most likely marry a man. I’m for equality though.

Jul 4, 2008 - 11:47 am Bullfrog:

Matt S.: As has been mentioned, some states already provide civil union status to same-sex couples so they can share tax benefits, estate, and the rest; maybe your friend’s could try to change their state laws to allow this in the state they live in.

People think changing the definition of a historic institution is “no big deal”, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. We are not the first society in history to open the definition of marriage to be more than “between one man and one woman”. Other societies that have done this found that it had very negative results on their culture as a whole. I am speaking from a practical perspective here, not just an ethical one, as I understand some do not care about what I believe to be morally right or wrong. Even if you are a morally relativist atheist, a strong argument against re-defining marriage is there. Assuming you care to find it, that is.

For the record, I have friends and even family that are homesexual; I do not hate gay people, but I do think marriage should be protected.

Jul 4, 2008 - 1:14 pm Mike:

Marriage is between one man and one woman

If our greatest concern is to protect marriage then we need to work to limit the number of divorces in this country. I should hope we can all agree with that.

But, before marriage was threatened by gays, it was threated by interracial couples. Now we have 50% divorce rates, and interracial couples are divorcing at higher rates than are same-race couples. If we agree that divorce rates are the best objective indicator of the institution’s health, these data support the notion that interracial marriage has eroded the foundation of marriage, just like its detractors predicted would happen.

I’d love to see marriage traditionalists support a roll-back of interracial marriage. If their true aim is to protect marriage, it is their solemn duty to exclude those who are more likely to get divorced. Have fun with that one, ya’ll.

Jul 4, 2008 - 2:33 pm Bullfrog:

Mike: Your premise is ridiculous. It is primarily the definition of the traditional institution of marriage that we need to protect. Previous laws which prohibited interracial marriage did not protect the definition of marriage, but denied couples the privilege to marry based solely on race.

To your point, marriage has been weakened an deemed less necessary by a 50% divorce rate (recent studies have put the statistic at just below 50%, still WAY too high). I believe this is largely due to our culture staying further and further from traditional values. Encouraging men and women to marry and make a family, not to mention adhering to the vows they make to one another is definitely part of what will help protect marriage on the way you mentioned. But, we have to avoid making the definition more “loose” first.

Jul 4, 2008 - 3:56 pm Mike:

Bullfrog -

The fact is, whether you refer to the inclusion of interracial couples as candidates for marriage as a “definition” or a “privilege” doesn’t change the fact that interracial couples were unable to marry in many southern states until the courts intervened in Loving v Virginia (1967). Here’s the list of states that were forced to repeal their anti-misegenation laws by the courts, because the a majority of the people didn’t support it and/or the legislature wouldn’t do it:

Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia.

Of those, the following have enacted constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage:

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia

At the time that interracial marriage wasn’t allowed, the people of these states truly believed they were protecting this country and marriage itself by only allowing marriage within races. Today we see the same thing with same-sex marriage, and the same states (and by extension, its people) are fighting to prevent same-sex marriage.

I hope that most people in this country wouldn’t call that court decision a mistake.

Majority opinion and conventional wisdom in those states determined that interracial marriage was wrong. If you believe the courts were right in forcing these states to allow interracial marriage, all I ask is that you consider whether the courts may be correct in intervening this time too.

Jul 4, 2008 - 10:15 pm Amphipolis:

Mike -

There is really no comparison between an interracial couple and a same-sex couple, other than both consisting of two people.

The difference between men and women is VASTLY greater than any perceived racial difference. How can you even compare them?

Jul 5, 2008 - 8:50 am Bullfrog:

Amphipolis: The notion that homosexuals are “just another minority like black people” is a large part of the agenda that drives the LGBT lobby. If they can get minority status, like Native Americans or African Americans, they will have accomplished alot.

I agree with you, that the comparison is apples and oranges.

It is important, for those that believe the definition of marriage should be protected and that may have ethical reservations about the LGBT lifestyle, practice polite tolerance without acceptance. The more aggressive we are without being merciful, the more the homosexual community can claim “persecution” in an attempt to draw a comparison between themselves and minority groups.

Jul 5, 2008 - 11:37 am Amphipolis:

polite tolerance without acceptance

Well put. But I fear that any lack of acceptance will be viewed as persecution by those who are already convinced of their victimhood.

I will not be politely silent. The article is awful.

Jul 5, 2008 - 4:53 pm Mike:

I do not claim to be persecuted or a victim, as my experience does not support such a claim. My friend however was attacked last month by an assailant who perceived him (rightly or wrongly) to be gay. He was hospitalized. Unfortunately this is the experience of far too many in the community.

The fact is that far too many LGBT people are attacked for being who/what they are, and I hope we call all agree that disagreeing with someone’s lifestyle certainly does not provide justification to physically/verbally assault them. So I strongly disagree that there is a certain false “victimhood” existing among LGBT people; the bottom line is nearly every gay person knows someone who’s been assaulted because of their orientation. In many cases there are real victims, and when your friend is attacked, you feel the pain too.

***************************************************************************

I agree that *some* in the LGBT community believe that “any lack of acceptance (would) be viewed as persecution by those who are already convinced of their victimhood.”

However, please realize these are the same people who perform in gay pride parades and do other things that put gays in a bad light. I believe this particular position, and those who would support it, are doing more harm than good, as many gay people just want to settle down with a spouse, own a house with a white picket fence, and otherwise live out the American dream just like everyone else.

It is easy to lose sight of all the “good gays” when only the surly ones are visible. Think about it like this: if you lived in another country and all you knew of American people was Hollywood celebrities on TV, you’d be pretty repulsed, wouldn’t you? This is what it’s like to be among mainstream America looking in at the gays. Only the shallowest, most attention seeking ones make themselves visible enough to be on TV. The patriotic, upstanding ones are too busy with their daily lives to bother with that garbage. It’s unfortunate, but true.

******************************************************************

In the end, I believe it is in both group’s best interests to draw down the tension and learn to peacefully co-exist, because neither group is going away. Right now, each group is involved in mutually reinforcing tension whereby (please forgive my bluntness) straight hostility leads to gay hostility and gay hostility leads to straight hostility (or vice versa). Both groups just need to cool and treat each other with respect. You’re not going to change my mind, I’m not going to change yours, and I’m glad that (in this forum at least) two disagreeing sides can have a civil discussion of the issues.

Jul 5, 2008 - 9:45 pm Amphipolis:

Mike, it sure seemed like you were trying to change minds a few posts ago, until your interracial analogy fell apart. But that’s OK.

Jul 6, 2008 - 2:14 pm Amphipolis:

Wow I’m an a**hole

Jul 6, 2008 - 9:03 pm Mike:

Actually, the argument holds up when someone is willing to argue it more patiently than I am. You can google it if you wish. I provided a different perspective and hopefully gave someone a new way to think about the issue (regardless of what s/he may have concluded about it).

And Amphipolis, I was trying to call a truce. Thanks for being a jerk

Jul 6, 2008 - 9:09 pm Bullfrog:

The “I’m OK, you’re OK” approach doesn’t really hold water when the Gay community is determined to redefine marriage for EVERYONE, simply for economic benefit and general social acceptance. Not to mention a disregard for potential negative effects on society as a whole. Anyone who chooses to join such a movement should know they are walking into a hostile environment.

Jul 7, 2008 - 12:05 am HillaryforPresident:

Being a moderate Democrat, we need to honor the sanctity of marriage.

But we also need to respect the rights of homosexuals to live a descent life. After all, they are human beings too. We don’t want to be like a society of Arab extremism where the young gays are being stoned to death or executed for their sexual preference.

We need also to support domestic partnership for gays and lesbians to behave normally. Like heterosexuals, we need to advocate for the capacity of gays and lesbians to love. We don’t want them to live the life of promiscuity by hitting everyone that comes their way.

The best solution is to make a society conducive for gays and lesbians to be descent and honorable.

That’s the least I can offer as a Christian to these people.

As Christ said, “He who’s not a sinner cast the first stone”.

You all know we are better society than that.

Jul 7, 2008 - 2:26 am Amphipolis:

“simply for economic benefit and general social acceptance”

I wouldn’t say that it’s only for those things. I’m sure that there are other reasons they want to destroy the peaceful lives of most Americans.

“Not to mention a disregard for potential negative effects on society as a whole”

This depends on your perspective. From their view, they are just obtaining the rights everyone else has, and the potential negative effects are have been imagined in the minds of those opposed to them

“Anyone who chooses to join such a movement should know they are walking into a hostile environment.”

True, but anyone walking into our movement is walking into a hostile environment as well. One look at the Westboro Baptist Church should tell you that. And at least the gay community isn’t assaulting us (as our ignorant one’s do to them)

Jul 7, 2008 - 3:02 am Evelyn:

With so few people being socially competent to forge and hold a bond strong enough for marriage, everyone who manages to be normal and marries the person they devote their life to should be congratulated, not ridiculed.

As for polygamy structures being legally sanctioned — that’s a different kettle of fish because it’s abusive towards women by definition and generates dysfunctional societies with huge gender imbalances and quasi slavery of the women in those (often loveless) marriages.

Monogamy out of real love is a good thing for society, be they gay or straight. Many of our problems stem from the fact that a lot of people are too broken to love anyone, and try to lay everyone by way of compensating…

Jul 7, 2008 - 4:25 am Indy Republican:

This issue has nothing to do with equality and everything with recognizing a sexual perversion. Even by the most liberal standards, homosexuality is still just a sexual aberration and to the rest of us who aren’t blinded by the left’s incessent whining about “equal rights,” it is a behavior that is practiced by a mentally ill minority. The sooner we point out the nonsense (and unproven notion) that “it’s genetic,” the sooner we will end the debate.

Jul 7, 2008 - 6:20 am Amphipolis:

I did not write the Amphipolis posts above at Jul 6, 2008 - 9:03 pm and Jul 7, 2008 - 3:02 am.

Evelyn:
that’s a different kettle of fish because it’s abusive towards women by definition and generates dysfunctional societies
Wouldn’t they just claim that those are bad polygamists? How could you possibly deny polygamists who want to marry out of real love? Don’t they have that right?

it’s abusive towards women by definition
A sexist comment. It could be one woman and two men.

Jul 7, 2008 - 6:32 am Amphipolis:

Mike -

The argument makes no sense. Male and female differences can’t be compared with racial differences. You begin with the assumption that they can. This is the crux of the entire issue. Men and women are inherently and profoundly different. This difference will not go away.

I continue to be civil. You call a truce when your argument is in trouble and then insult me when I call you on it. But hey, I’m not going to convince you - and I wish you well. I can’t speak for my newly acquired alter-ego.

Jul 7, 2008 - 6:56 am LAgirl:

I posted what God says about homosexuality earlier this morning … that’s pretty sad when moderation silences the Word of God.

–Later

Jul 7, 2008 - 8:43 am Dyanne:

LAgirl -

I agree with you that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, but for you to dismiss moderation as a viable alternative, you would also need to enforce ALL of God’s decrees in the Bible. Do you support the stoning of prostitutes, or stoning in all of the other ways the Bible decrees it as the appropriate punishment?

If not, then you are just as much a hypocrite as anyone who dismisses what the Bible says on homosexuality.

Jul 7, 2008 - 12:31 pm Bullfrog:

Dyanne:

What LAgirl meant was that the blog moderator blocked her post, maybe because she quoted the Bible? Don’t know…

To your point, the Bible isn’t “moderate” about the homosexual lifestyle. It is very plain that it is regarded as sin. There is no prescribed punishment laid out in the Bible for homosexuality, so I am not sure where you are going with your comparison with the stoning of prostitutes, except to evoke an emotional response by making the previous poster feel guilty about not being accepting.

Yes, Christians and homosexuals can and should co-exist, but you cannot ask the committed Christian to accept their lifestyle (assuming they know their Bibles and have a conscience) you can only ask that they tolerate it politely.

It is decidedly impolite and intrusive for the gay community to try to pass legislation that redefines marriage for all people without regard to what effect it has had in other countries that have passed similar legislation legalizing same-sex co-habitation or the negative effect on the real benefactors of marriage: children.

Jul 7, 2008 - 4:41 pm julie:

Wouldn’t it just be easier if, in the eyes of government, all marriages were a civil union - a legal contract between two people, and churches were the ones that labelled civil unions marriages?

just a suggestion….

Jul 7, 2008 - 11:14 pm Schala:

Same-sex cohabitation has always been legal. You don’t sign a contract to live with someone. Nor do you have a ceremony. Just like different-sex cohabitation is legal. People usually do that before considering marriage, if they can marry anyway.

What effect did it have in other countries? I’m curious to hear it.

Jul 7, 2008 - 11:49 pm Jerry Green:

Why is the government in the marriage business anyway? All marriages and the rights thereunto pertaining should be done privately and contractually between those involved. All ceremonies should be done by whatever church or cult or tribe they want to shine for. Tax-wise, take marriage out of the equation. How did the government get into the marriage business in the first place?

Jul 8, 2008 - 7:40 am Amphipolis:

Marriage protected women from being impregnated and dumped. Marriage provided for the optimum nurturing of the next generation with a mother and a father having a long-term commitment. Marriage provided a legal basis for inheritance decisions. Marriage formed the most basic social unit of society, welding the male and the female halves of humanity into a unit focused on raising the next generation, which is a product of their union.

Jul 8, 2008 - 8:25 am Bullfrog:

In Scandinavia, the effect of making same sex co-habitation legal and subject to almost all laws marriage is subject to resulted in a higher rate of cohabitation without marriage because marriage became less necessary. To the point last made by Amphopolis, this disrupts the traditional family unit, whose main benefactor is the children that result from the marriage relationship. History and statistics show that a generation of kids with less than one mother and one father living together in a nurturing environment is bad.

The reason the government got involved is because it acknowledges the benefit to the society as a whole if the traditional family is allowed to thrive. That is why married couples are given tax benefits and other “perks”, it is meant to encourage people to do more than live together and not have children, stay single and not get married, etc.

Jul 8, 2008 - 11:16 am Schala:

“In Scandinavia, the effect of making same sex co-habitation legal and subject to almost all laws marriage is subject to resulted in a higher rate of cohabitation without marriage because marriage became less necessary.”

I don’t get your reasoning. Why did it become less necessary or was perceived that way? You got the same benefits as before if you could marry before, so why is it less necessary?

As for gay people getting those benefits. They already were having trouble to adopt, because our previous orphanages have so few kids or something equally false… If gay couples can adopt children, then it helps society too. Children who gets shipped from one orphanage to another, and then from one foster family to another is better than living all your underage life with the same family who actually wanted you (rather than was burdened with you randomly and accepted)?

Don’t give me stuff about how biological children are always better, cause well, we have orphanages because someone didn’t want the child, or both parents died (and I’d say more the former than the latter, except in war time). And they do need someone to take care of them.

Jul 8, 2008 - 2:26 pm Bullfrog:

Schala: I was projecting based on the statistics that showed fewer people chose to become married and just live together after cohabitation laws for same-sex couples were passed. Laws giving married couples perks are designed to encourage people to marry. If living together and being married are perceived the same by the law, then why marry at all?

Adopting children ideally helps children who are in need of parents, not society. Society certainly benefits from healthy children. And adoption is inevitable as you mentioned due to various factors from untimely death to just plain irresponsible people who are not willing to parent. That said, you can’t simply dismiss out of hand the known benefits to children who are raised by 2 biological parents; one male, one female. The ideal situation for children should be the goal as these are people who are unable to provide for, protect, or make decisions for themselves.

Forgive me if I mischaracterize your argument, but you seem to be implying that, since ANYTHING is better than no parents, why not place a child with a same-sex couple?

My answer is simple: That same sex couple should know the facts about child rearing and, realizing they cannot provide the “ideal”, opt not to adopt children at all because they are putting the best interest of the child before their desire to have a family. Lest you think me unfair or bigoted, I should say the same goes for a single parent trying to adopt, or an unmarried heterosexual couple who want to do the same.

Jul 8, 2008 - 5:07 pm Amphipolis:

Schala:

Is it best, in general, for a child to have a mother and a father? Yes or no?

Jul 8, 2008 - 7:56 pm A Stoner:

Sorry,
would you please clarify the passage in the constitution that says “and also freedom from religion.” I do not seem to recall this. Freedom from religion would neccessarily mean that all public displays of religious nature would have to be illegal. Since this does not seem to be the case today, even after hundreds of years of intellectual progressive’s war against religion, I certainly have grave reservations about the constitution granting this right to athiests. While a person is certainly allowed to practice religion in ways that do not interfere with others protected rights, no person has the right to force others to not practice religion in ways that do not interfere with their rights.

As far as I am concerned, if two adults want to have a legal binding commitment to each-other, there are many such ways to do this with-out calling it marraige and certainly with-out intermingling it into marraige. Marraige is a tradition, and I certainly hope you are not telling me that a people’s traditions are meaningless and the government should be allowed to trample all over these meaningless traditions? My, but what power the government would weild if that was allowed. The truth of the matter is that gays getting married is just one more step in the progressive movement’s grand plan to strip America of its strength, and that is to strip its moral fabric. To equivelence of everything. There is no evil, there is no right or wrong, and the fact that you are drinking the punch means that you are a progressive.

yes, gays have the right to freedom, but they do not have the right to marry and should never have the right to marry. They also should be shunned, and marginalized as much as is possible by society as a whole. They are an abomination that is either cause by defective wiring in the brain, genetically broken, or emotionally damaged. Marraige is not an institution to promote religion, procreation or anything. It is an instituion to create environments where children can grow up with out fear of having their lives turned upside down by changing adults in their lives. It builds a stable society from which people have a stake in that society and work towards its good.

Jul 9, 2008 - 12:02 pm Joshua:

As a gay, homosexual, queer, log for the fires in Hell - whatever you want to call me - I would like to just say that my FIANCE and I are to be married this Saturday in California. We’re spending a LOT of money there. A lot. Just . . . trust me. It’s a lot.

The financial benefit of allowing us to marry is already evident, as the millions continue to roll in for CA and Mass. What you people don’t seem to understand is that the constitution was written to GIVE rights, not take them away. We are a free country, but we still seek to repress those we do not understand.

First it was the “Indians”. Then the slaves. Then the Irish immigrants. Then back to the black people. Then women (still women, really). Now it’s the gays. But somehow, the people you “normal” folks try to keep down, the self same ones who you spit on, mock, FEAR - yes FEAR, has history not shown you that they rise up eventually. They take their own rights - the same rights you enjoy? It’s happening now, folks.

You better find someone else to hate. I hear the deaf are available. Maybe the blind next, hmm? What about people who say “supposebly” instead of “supposedly”? Ooooh, I know . . . online gamblers. SINNERS!! Go get ‘em!

Just live your lives! We, the gays, aren’t out to negate your marriages, recruit your kids, or try in any way to change your lives. We, honestly, BELIEVE ME, don’t really give a flying monkey’s coitus about you or what you do unless we know you personally, and we’d rather you adopted the same philosophy to us. You’re no better, you’re no different, and in fact, I’m willing to bet many of you have repressed homosexual urges in your history. But, let’s save that discussion for another day.

Jul 9, 2008 - 3:07 pm Schala:

“My answer is simple: That same sex couple should know the facts about child rearing and, realizing they cannot provide the “ideal”, opt not to adopt children at all because they are putting the best interest of the child before their desire to have a family. Lest you think me unfair or bigoted, I should say the same goes for a single parent trying to adopt, or an unmarried heterosexual couple who want to do the same.”

So single mothers and single fathers who had a child the ‘biological way’ should forfeit their parental rights to that child or those children, since they can’t provide an ‘ideal’ environment for them. The state should reclaim them in 100% of cases and have them as orphans, right? Cause that’s what you just said.

“Is it best, in general, for a child to have a mother and a father? Yes or no?”

It is best to have two, or more parents. Since one parent would arguably have to juggle the nurture and the time at work, and unless they’re rich and can live off their huge piles of money somewhere, they can’t be with their children reasonably enough.

What’s wrong with having two male or two female parents? Don’t tell me about teaching the masculine and the feminine, cause well, society teaches it a lot by itself, so that children figure it out early enough, what they like and how they identify. They don’t absolutely need living examples at home.

And also that’s assuming two males couldn’t have feminine qualities and that two females couldn’t have masculine qualities - which is bullshit.

“They also should be shunned, and marginalized as much as is possible by society as a whole. They are an abomination that is either cause by defective wiring in the brain, genetically broken, or emotionally damaged.”

Let’s instead shun people who pick nicknames like “A Stoner”, their reasoning is so warped and out of sync with reality that they could be damaging to themselves and others (which qualifies as a mental illness), so yeah, let’s shun the “A Stoner”s of the world, who want to make it back to stone age. /sarcasm

Jul 9, 2008 - 6:04 pm Amphipolis:

You haven’t answered the question.

Is it best, in general, for a child to have a mother and a father? Yes or no? Answer the question.

Are men and women inherently different, Schala? If so, they would absolutely be different as parents.

Your assumption that two males could have feminine qualities is exactly backwards. Two males would obviously double the male influence on the child and eliminate the female influence. A gay man is not female and can not be a mother. To suggest otherwise is fantasy. If such a person assumes he can, it makes me question his fitness in knowing a child’s needs and wonder what hostility he has toward women that he would deny the unique parenting skill a woman would provide. Ditto for two women.

They don’t absolutely need living examples at home.
Not if you devalue the opposite sex and their contribution to parenting, beyond conception.

Best to have two OR MORE parents? I see you apply your rationale consistently.

This is my last post on the subject, any further posts are not by me.

Jul 10, 2008 - 7:22 am Schala:

“Is it best, in general, for a child to have a mother and a father? Yes or no? Answer the question.”

Frankly, I think it is best for children to be raised in a commune. But seeing as this is an ideal that probably won’t be reached in North America for at least a couple generations, I can’t advocate for it in the present time. But in ideal terms it seems better than having two parents only, yes.

“Your assumption that two males could have feminine qualities is exactly backwards.”

It’s feminine qualities, not female qualities. Anyone can have feminine or masculine qualities. Or maybe you think butch women (ie masculine women) are not women?

And lastly, prove it with studies showing that two parents, being male and female, is UNIVERSALLY better than two parents at all. Cause there’s no studies on that. Studies on gay parents tend to say they raise children that are just as healthy psychologically and physically as children from heterosexual households.

Having more than two parents is ideal in a way, cause you get more than two points of view. One parent is less ideal, and being raised with no parental figure (orphanage, foster parents who never become permanent) is considered usually worse. Families used to have grandparents live in with their children and grandchildren. That makes at least 4, if not 6 parents.

Jul 10, 2008 - 8:14 am Bullfrog:

Schala:

“So single mothers and single fathers who had a child the ‘biological way’ should forfeit their parental rights…? Cause that’s what you just said.”

Not even close. I realize, especially as the product of a single parent since I was a toddler, that things happen. It would not have been a good thing for me to be taken from my biological mother and sent to an orphanage, because as my biological mother we had a “connection” that should not be broken. It would have been ideal for me if my mother and father had taken their vows in marriage seriously and worked harder to stay together, at least for the sake of their children. That didn’t happen, and guess who was missing important building blocks psychologically and emotionally? Me. I am not whining, I am a responsible adult who takes care of my own family, and I do not blame my parents for who I am today. However, they could have made better decisions. If only one biological parent exists or is capable of being in the picture for whatever reason, than it is what it is, let that person do their best like my mother did while raising 2 boys on her own. There are endless scenarios, and I will not go into them all, suffice it to say, we should as individuals strive to give our children excellence in every way and not make them “settle” for less.

“…two, or more parents.”

Your sense of what is “logical” is nowhere near a barometer for what is best for children. A feminine male is just as good as a female? Gibberish.

“…juggle the nurture and the time at work,…”

You have relegated the responsibility of parenting to task management while at the same time made my point about one man and one woman. Men are “wired” to be the bread-winner, hunter-gatherer, etc while women are more in tune to emotion and therefore better suited for nurturing. I learn how to properly nurture from my wife daily, not because I am not sensitive (raised by a single mom, remember) or because she reads more, but because of our fundamental differences that help us to complement each other. This is why 2 males or 2 females isn’t adequate.

A male with “feminine” qualities isn’t enough to compensate for a woman. My single mom could be pretty “butch” at times, but we still missed our daddy.

“Frankly, I think it is best for children to be raised in a commune.”

Again, your child-rearing radar is not just off, it is down, not working. Sorry if this seems personal, it is not meant to be. But from what I have learned about kids, being raised by a group of people would thoroughly confuse them.

“And lastly, prove it with studies showing that two parents, being male and female, is UNIVERSALLY better than two parents at all.”

Do you know any family-oriented therapists? Ask them what a child needs to grow up healthy and balanced, or just ask someone you trust (who hopefully has experience with kids and common sense) what they think. I don’t need to site a “study” because EVERY nuclear family or those who know a nuclear family understand this already without picking up a book or “Googling”.

“Families used to have grandparents live in with their children and grandchildren. That makes at least 4, if not 6 parents.”

Been here too. Whenever grandparents are involved, it is in the best interest of the child that the authority of the mother and father be respected. Otherwise, kids will not respect the authority of their parents absolutely as children or adults. That later translates into more general issues rejecting authority which has the potential to result in job loss (no respect for boss) or worse, jail (no respect for official authority). So, we are back to 2 parents again.

I realize that you mean well, and give you the benefit of the doubt without knowing you that you have a sincere desire for what is best for children. That said, you are way off here and what you believe, if applied to society as a whole, would mean disaster. A welfare state, prisons packed to the rafters, VERY busy therapists and psychiatrists…

Jul 10, 2008 - 2:06 pm Schala:

“Men are “wired” to be the bread-winner, hunter-gatherer, etc while women are more in tune to emotion and therefore better suited for nurturing.”

Some men like that role, some don’t, but they are pushed into it by society. Few women want an unemployed man even as a date, but most men don’t mind an unemployed woman. So men are pushed to work by the prevailing culture, while women are pushed to have children, and take care of them. Less in North America than say Japan though.

“A male with “feminine” qualities isn’t enough to compensate for a woman. My single mom could be pretty “butch” at times, but we still missed our daddy.”

You said yourself that you did fine anyways. And having two parents means your quality of life should also be at least marginally higher than a single parent. You’d also get more time with at least one of them, if not both. Consider instances where there is no child support because the father died, the mother HAS to work. While with two mothers, or two fathers, one can work, and the other raise the child or children, or both can accomodate a schedule to have equal time with them, while not straining to make ends meet.

“That said, you are way off here and what you believe, if applied to society as a whole, would mean disaster. A welfare state, prisons packed to the rafters, VERY busy therapists and psychiatrists…”

Yes, I’m sure that you’ve seen it happen before, and that you can accurately judge the results of an hypothetical scenario based on mental imagery alone.

So since imagining the future is so accurate, where’s my flying car from Back to the Future? And where’s the moon base from 2001: A space oddysey?

Jul 10, 2008 - 3:49 pm Bullfrog:

Yeah, I turned out ok, thanks be to God, but my point is that it is a gamble. Why gamble on the well-being of a child?

As to your various scenarios that are not what I describe as the “ideal”, I have already exhausted my views on that:

“There are endless scenarios, and I will not go into them all, suffice it to say, we should as individuals strive to give our children excellence in every way and not make them “settle” for less.”

You do have me at a loss, as I have never seen “2001: A Space Odyssey”.

Jul 10, 2008 - 4:24 pm Jamie VanEaton:

Congratulations on your upcoming nuptials, Joshua! May your days be happy with your loved one.

Thanks, too, for the discussion, everyone! I love reading your comments. Whether we agree or agree to disagree, I am always learning something new from new friends.

Regards,

Jamie

Jul 10, 2008 - 7:50 pm Schala:

“You do have me at a loss, as I have never seen “2001: A Space Odyssey”.”

Haven’t seen it either, not like I was born in 1968 anyways. I have a book with all of them, 2001, 2010, 2061, 3001 (Oddysey One, Two, Three, Final). But yeah, Clarke, in his novel, said there would be a base on the moon. Not exactly for tourists, but still, we don’t have any settlement there even now in 2008.

They also would do trips to Jupiter, although their capacities don’t seem to differ from ours much in that regards (they didn’t have faster-than-light stuff or anything). Well the trip from 2001 is the first I think. And we’ve yet to go to Mars because the government decided war was more important than space, since the Cold War ended.

Jul 10, 2008 - 9:35 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: